Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, November 7, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

C. The Grantee agrees to provide AMBAG, or AMBAG’s designee, with any relevant information requested.

D. The Grantee agrees to permit AMBAG or AMBAG’s designee access to its premises, upon reasonable notice, during normal business hours for the purpose of interviewing employees who might reasonably have information related to such records and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other material that may be relevant to a matter under investigation for the purpose of determining compliance with statutes, REAP 2.0 Guidelines, and the Agreement.

E. AMBAG may request additional information, as needed, to meet other applicable audit requirements.

F. AMBAG or AMBAG’s designee may monitor expenditures and activities of a Grantee or its designees, contractors or subcontractors, as AMBAG deems necessary, to ensure compliance with REAP requirements.

G. If there are audit findings, the Grantee must submit a detailed response acceptable to AMBAG or AMBAG’s designee for each audit finding within 90 days from the date of the audit finding report.

H. The Grantee agrees to maintain such records for possible audit after the final payment for at least five years after all funds have been expended or returned to AMBAG unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated. Wherever practicable, such records should be collected, transmitted, and stored in open and machine- readable formats.

I. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit, monitoring, inspection, or other action has been started before the expiration of the required record retention period, all records must be retained by the Grantee and its designees, contractors, and subcontractors until completion of the action and resolution of all issues which arise from it. In any contract that it enters into in an amount exceeding $10,000, the Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 18., Item Page 14, Packet Page 276 Grantee shall include AMBAG’s right to audit the contractor’s records and interview their employees.

J. The Grantee shall comply with and be aware of the requirements and penalties for violations of fraud and for obstruction of investigation as set forth in California Public Contracts Code Section 10115.10.

4. Remedies and Non-Performance
A. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this Agreement that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by AMBAG’s Executive Director, or the Executive Director’s designee, who may consider any written or verbal evidence submitted by the Grantee. The decision of AMBAG’s Executive Director or Designee shall be AMBAG’s final decision regarding the dispute, not subject to appeal.

B. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by AMBAG will excuse the Grantee from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

C. In the event that it is determined, at the sole discretion of AMBAG, that the Grantee is not meeting the terms and conditions of the Agreement, immediately upon receiving a written notice from AMBAG to stop work, the Grantee shall cease all work under the Agreement. AMBAG has the sole discretion to determine that the Grantee meets the terms and conditions after a stop work order, and to deliver a written notice to the Grantee to resume work under the Agreement.

D. AMBAG has the right to terminate the Agreement at any time upon 30 calendar days written notice. The notice shall specify the reason for early termination and may permit the Grantee or AMBAG to rectify any deficiency(ies) prior to the early termination date. The Grantee will submit any requested documents to AMBAG within 30 calendar days of the early termination notice.

E. The applicant must demonstrate a clear and significant nexus to REAP 2.0 Program goals and objectives and must carry out provisions to meet the Program goals and objectives and other requirements, including, but not limited to, adoption or completion of activities toward policy outcomes and implementation of eligible use activities funded through a suballocation process. Any lack of action or action inconsistent with REAP 2.0 requirements may result in review and could be subject to repayment of the grant.

F. At any time, if AMBAG finds the Grantee included false information in application, as part of the application review, or subsequent amendments, AMBAG may require Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 18., Item Page 15, Packet Page 277 the repayment of funds.

G. Grantees are responsible for suballocations meeting all REAP 2.0 requirements.

H. If a grantee has not spent at least 20% of a REAP 2.0 grant awarded by December 31, 2024, that grantee’s funding will be deobligated and reallocated to another grantee and/or purpose at the discretion of AMBAG’s Executive Director or the Executive Director’s designee.

I. If a grantee has not spent at 60% of a REAP 2.0 grant awarded by September 31, 2025, that grantee’s funding may be deobligated and reallocated to another grantee, and/or purpose at the discretion of AMBAG’s Executive Director or the Executive Director’s designee.

J. Examples of a breach of this Agreement:

1. Grantee’s failure to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement.

2. Use of, or permitting the use of, grant funds provided under this Agreement for any ineligible costs or for any activity not specified and approved under this Agreement.

3. Any failure to comply with the deadlines set forth in this Agreement unless approved by the Program Manager in writing.

K. AMBAG may, as it deems appropriate or necessary, require the repayment of funds from a Grantee, or pursue any other remedies available to it by law for failure to comply with all REAP 2.0 Program requirements or breach of this agreement.

L. In addition to any other remedies that may be available to AMBAG in law or equity for breach of this Agreement, AMBAG may at its discretion, exercise a variety of remedies, including but not limited to:

1. Revoke existing REAP 2.0 award(s) to the Grantee;

2. Require the return of unexpended REAP 2.0 funds disbursed under this Agreement;

3. Require repayment of REAP 2.0 Funds disbursed and expended under this Agreement;

4. Seek a court order for specific performance of the obligation defaulted upon, or the appointment of a receiver to complete the obligations in accordance Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 18., Item Page 16, Packet Page 278 with the REAP 2.0 Program requirements; and

5. Other remedies available at law, by and through this Agreement. All remedies available to AMBAG are cumulative and not exclusive.

6. AMBAG may give written notice to the Grantee to cure the breach or violation within a period of not less than 15 calendar days.

M. The Grantee may be subject to amendment of this section as a result of subsequent applications and awards.

N. AMBAG and the Grantee are fully committed to working with each other throughout the Term of this Agreement and agree to communicate regularly with each other at all times so as to avoid and minimize disputes. AMBAG and the Grantee agree to act in good faith to prevent and resolve potential sources of conflict before they escalate into a question or controversy. AMBAG and the Grantee each commit to resolving such dispute in an amicable, professional, and expeditious manner and agree to use the following procedure for resolving the dispute: (a) either party may give notice to the other of the dispute and will meet within three (3) business days to attempt to resolve the dispute; (b) a meeting or meetings shall be promptly between the representatives of the parties regarding the dispute to attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute; (c) if within thirty (30) days after a dispute has arisen, the parties have not succeeded in negotiating a resolution of the dispute, they agree to submit the dispute to mediation; (d) the mediator shall be jointly selected by the parties, or failing agreement on the selection of a mediator within thirty (30) days after the parties fail to negotiate an informal resolution of any dispute, the mediator shall be a retired judge or justice selected by the supervising judge of the Civil Division of the Monterey County California Superior Court. In any mediation conducted pursuant to this section, the provision of the California Evidence Code section 1152 shall be applicable to limit the admissibility of evidence disclosed by the parties in the course of the mediation; and € if the parties are not successful in resolving the dispute through the mediation, then the parties agree that the dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration to a single arbitrator in accordance with the existing Rules of Practice of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (JAMS) within thirty (30) days of the close of mediation as declared by the mediator.

O. In the event either party brings an action or proceeding for damages arising out of the other's performance under this Agreement or to establish the right or remedy of either party, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as part of such action or proceeding, whether or not such action or proceeding is prosecuted to judgment. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to California law, and any action to enforce the terms of this Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 18., Item Page 17, Packet Page 279 Agreement or for the breach thereof shall be brought and tried in the County of Monterey.

5. Reporting
A. At any time during the term of the Agreement, AMBAG may request a performance report that demonstrates satisfaction of all requirements identified in the Agreement with emphasis on eligible activities, eligible uses, and expenditures according to timelines and budgets referenced in the Agreement.

B. Reports shall include the following information:

1. The status of the Proposed Uses and expenditures listed in the Grantee’s applications for funding and progress of each proposed use toward all the objectives of the REAP 2.0 program as provided in the Guidelines and explained in the applications.

2. An explanation and quantification, where appropriate, of the progress achieved toward all of the objectives of the REAP 2.0 program, barriers and solutions for each Proposed Use that is consistent with and incorporates the metrics in the full application, including, but not limited to:
i. Housing units accelerated,
ii. Reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Capita,
iii. Location of investment,
iv. Socioeconomic statistics about the impacted geography, and v. Regional impact explanation
The report must identify whether proposed uses overlap with other programs that share the same objectives as REAP 2.0. The Grantee should also identify any measurement challenges that persist and highlight any administrative barriers that prevent it from obtaining the information it needs to perform better analysis of progress made achieving REAP 2.0 Objectives and make adjustments to the extent possible in subsequent reporting years.

C. Upon completion of all deliverables within the Agreement, the Grantee shall submit a close out report in a manner and form prescribed by AMBAG.

6. Indemnification
Neither AMBAG nor any officer, employee or designee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by the Grantee, its officers, Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 18., Item Page 18, Packet Page 280 employees, agents, its contractors, its sub-recipients or its subcontractors under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon the Grantee under this Agreement, Guidelines or Statute. It is understood and agreed that the Grantee shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless AMBAG and all of AMBAG’s staff from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortuous, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the Grantee, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, sub-recipients, or subcontractors under this Agreement, Guidelines or Statute.

7. Waivers
No waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall be held to be a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. The failure of AMBAG to enforce at any time the provisions of this Agreement, or to require at any time, performance by the Grantee of these provisions, shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provisions nor to affect the validity of this Agreement or the right of AMBAG to enforce these provisions.

8. Relationship of Parties
It is expressly understood that this Agreement is an agreement executed by and between two independent governmental entities and is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, or any other relationship whatsoever other than that of an independent party.

9. Third Party Contracts
A. All REAP 2.0 related funded procurements must be conducted using a fair and competitive procurement process. The Grantee may use its own procurement procedures as long as the procedures comply with all City/County laws, rules and ordinances governing procurement, and all applicable provisions of California state law.

B. Any contract entered into as a result of this Agreement shall contain all the provisions stipulated in this Agreement and shall be applicable to the Grantee’s subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors. Copies of all agreements with subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors shall be submitted to AMBAG’s program manager.

C. AMBAG does not have a contractual relationship with the Grantee’s subrecipients, contractors, or subcontractors, and the Grantee shall be fully Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 18., Item Page 19, Packet Page 281 responsible for monitoring and enforcement of those agreements and all work performed thereunder.

10. Compliance with State and Federal Laws, Rules, Guidelines and Regulations A. The Grantee agrees to comply with all state and federal laws, rules and regulations that pertain to construction, health and safety, labor, fair employment practices, equal opportunity, and all other matters applicable to the grant, the Grantee, its contractors or subcontractors, and any other grant activity.

B. During the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee assures that no otherwise qualified person shall be excluded from participation or employment, denied program benefits, or be subjected to discrimination based on race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, age, disability, handicap, familial status, religion, or belief, under any program or activity funded by this contract, as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-20) and all implementing regulations, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and all implementing regulations.

C. The Grantee shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all agreements with its sub-recipients, contractors, and subcontractors, and shall include a requirement in all agreements that each of them in turn include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts and subcontracts they enter into to perform work under the REAP 2.0 Program.

D. The Grantee shall, in the course of performing project work, fully comply with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) E. The Grantee shall adopt and implement affirmative processes and procedures that provide information, outreach and promotion of opportunities in the REAP project to encourage participation of all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, familial status, or disability. This includes, but is not limited to, a minority outreach program to ensure the inclusion, to the maximum extent possible, of minorities and women, and entities owned by minorities and women, as required by 24 CFR 92.351.

11. Litigation
A. If any provision of this Agreement, or an underlying obligation, is held invalid by a Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 18., Item Page 20, Packet Page 282 court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity, at the sole discretion of AMBAG, shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Therefore, the provisions of this Agreement are, and shall be, deemed severable.

B. The Grantee shall notify AMBAG immediately of any claim or legal action undertaken by or against it, which affects or may affect this Agreement or AMBAG, and shall take such action with respect to the claim or legal action consistent with the terms of this Agreement and the interests of AMBAG.

12. Changes in Terms/Amendments
A. The Grantee may be subject to amendments to this section as a result of subsequent applications and awards.

B. This Agreement may only be amended or modified by mutual written agreement of both parties.

13. State-Owned Data
A. Definitions

1. Work:

The work to be directly or indirectly produced by the Grantee, its employees, or by and of the Grantee’s contractor’s, subcontractor’s and/or sub-recipient’s employees under this Agreement.

2. Work Product:

All deliverables created or produced from Work under this Agreement including, but not limited to, all Work and deliverables conceived or made or, hereafter conceived or made, either solely or jointly with others during the term of this Agreement and during a period of six months after the termination thereof, which relates to the Work commissioned or performed under this Agreement, are considered Work Product. Work Product includes all deliverables, inventions, innovations, improvements, or other works of authorship Grantee and/or Grantee’s contractor subcontractor and/or sub-recipient may conceive of or develop in the course of this Agreement, whether or not they are eligible for patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other legal protection.

B. Sharing of Work Product and Rights
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 18., Item Page 21, Packet Page 283 All Work Product shall be shared with AMBAG and its partners for various purposes, including education, outreach, transparency and future learning.

14. Special Conditions
AMBAG reserves the right to add any special conditions to this Agreement it deems necessary to assure that the policy and goals of the Program are achieved.

15. Term
This Memorandum of Understanding shall end on March 31, 2027. ___________________________
Date: _____________
Maura F. Twomey
Executive Director
___________________________
Date: ______________
Hans Uslar, City Manager
City of Monterey
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 18., Item Page 22, Packet Page 284 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Scott Bowen, Engineering Project Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize Budget Appropriations of $1,125,458.06 between Presidio of Monterey Public Works Accounts for the POM B267 Renovate Building Project & OMC B7693 Replace Flooring Project, and Authorize Administrative Budget Appropriations Not Exceeding $350,000 Individually for Unscheduled Presidio Maintenance Projects Through June 30, 2024 ***IGSA***(NEPA Not a Project, CEQA Not a Project under Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a) and Pub.

Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1))
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $1,125,458.06 in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund to the Presidio of Monterey Unscheduled Maintenance Projects, Option Year 6 - POM account [650-310-3199-6001-5027] for the POM B267 Renovate Building Project & OMC B7693 Replace Flooring Project;

2. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee, to Increase the Special Project Reimbursement Fees revenue account [650-310-3199-3658] in the amount of $1,125,458.06; and,

3. Authorizing and directing the Finance Director, or their designee, to make the necessary administrative budget appropriations and/or transfers, none of which may individually exceed $350,000 when the Department of Defense (Army) executes and issues Individual Job Order (“IJO”) awards and/or cost modifications for Unscheduled Maintenance Projects during the fiscal period of July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships.

In collaboration with our community partners, work to improve the quality of life of all of our community members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion; championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City’s policy to approve all budget adjustments and support the mission of providing project services to the Department of Defense through the Intergovernmental Support Agreement (“IGSA”).

Date: 11/7/2023
Item No.: 19.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1, Packet Page 285 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City has received Individual Job Order awards and funding under the PMSA’s master IGSA for the purpose of renovating the offices of Building 267 at the Presidio of Monterey and replacement of floor covering in Building 7693 located in the Ord Military Community (OMC) in the amounts of $394,798.19 and $730,749.87, respectively. The requested appropriation of funds is fully funded by the Department of Defense through the collection of Special Project Reimbursement Fees.

As in prior years, it has been efficient for the Council to have the Finance Director, or their designee, preauthorized to make IGSA budget appropriations that are purely administrative in nature. If an individual project budget or modification exceeds $350,000, then that project or modification is brought before the City Council for authorization to make the necessary appropriations. All expenditure appropriation adjustments will be offset by an equal adjustment to revenue in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund. This past practice has proven to be effective in allowing projects to get started on a timely basis. This preauthorization is affirmed annually and staff asks that Council again approve for the fiscal period of July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

All Department of Defense project services provided by IGSA require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation rather than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation. Under NEPA, the action to appropriate funds does not require a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC).

CEQA applies to discretionary projects (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a)). CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects (Pub. Resources Code, §21080, subd. (b)(1)). There is a recognized policy consideration underlying the distinction between ministerial and discretionary projects.

The purpose of CEQA is to minimize the adverse effects of new construction on the environment. To trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability and authority to mitigate environmental damage to some degree. Unless a public agency can shape the project in a way that would respond to concerns raised in an EIR, or its functional equivalent, environmental review would be a meaningless exercise.

Here, the City does not have the power to deny or condition the permit, or otherwise modify the project in ways which would mitigate environmental problems an environmental impact report might conceivably have identified. The City does not have the authority to dictate changes to the Army’s projects’ design or location in response to any impacts that an environmental review might reveal, the City’s authority under CEQA is essentially ministerial and therefore no further environmental review is required by the City.

In some cases, these subsequent discretionary projects may also require environmental determination in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 2, Packet Page 286 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to appropriate the funds; however, this alternative is not recommended. The City has a contractual agreement to provide project services to the Department of Defense at the Presidio of Monterey, DEOC and NRL under the 2023 Intergovernmental Support Agreement. By approving performance of these project services, the success of the City’s partnership with the Department of Defense is strengthened.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey provides project management and public works services to the Department of Defense on the Presidio of Monterey, Ord Military Community, and U.S. Army Signal Activity – Camp Roberts under an Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA). These costs are fully reimbursed by the Department of Defense and support the City’s ongoing partnership with the Federal government. Throughout the year, the Department of Defense modifies its allocation of funding for the IGSA depending on the availability of funds and needs analysis.

The Army has executed and awarded Individual Job Orders (“IJO”) under the IGSA for POM B267 Renovate Building Project & OMC B7693 Replace Flooring Project.

The primary objective of the POM Building 267 Renovate Building Project is to renovate the existing offices to accommodate more staff. POM Department of Public Works (DPW) has plans to merge the department’s various division offices and are in need of renovated space that fits their needs. Building 267 is being renovated to accommodate the occupants currently at POM B204 & OMC B4455.

The primary objective of the OMC Building 7693 Replace Flooring Project is to replace the existing flooring in the childcare areas with new vinyl flooring. Flooring throughout the Monterey Road Child Development Center is warped, cracked, peeling away at corners, and exposing nails. Several service requests are submitted to address issues individually; however, repairs continue to be required as indicated during monthly Environmental Health Inspections.

The recommended appropriation of funds will be used for the execution and delivery of the POM B267 Renovate Building Project & OMC B7693 Replace Flooring Project within the City’s Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund. This new project expenditure budget total of $1,125,458.06 will be fully offset by an increase in Special Project Reimbursement Fees collected by the City from the Department of Defense. This action has no cost impact to the General Fund.

It is further recommended that the City Council preauthorize the Finance Director, or their designee, to make the necessary IGSA administrative budget appropriations and/or transfers, none of which may individually exceed $350,000, when the Department of Defense executes and issues additional IJO awards and/or cost modifications for Unscheduled Maintenance Projects. The preauthorization will expire June 30, 2024. All expenditure appropriation adjustments will be off-set by an equal adjustment to revenue in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund. This preauthorization enhances the ability of the Finance and Public Works Departments to coordinate and execute projects on a timely basis. The Council’s authorization is approved annually and has been working smoothly for the past seven years.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 3, Packet Page 287 Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $1,125,458.06 in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Authority Fund to the Presidio of Monterey Unscheduled Maintenance Projects, Option Year 6 - POM account [650-310-3199-6001- 5027] for the POM B267 Renovate Building Project & OMC B7693 Replace Flooring Project;

2. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee, to Increase the Special Project Reimbursement Fees revenue account [650-310-3199-3658] in the amount of $1,125,458.06; and,

3. Authorizing and directing the Finance Director, or their designee, to make the necessary administrative budget appropriations and/or transfers, none of which may individually exceed $350,000 when the Department of Defense executes and issues Individual Job Order (“IJO”) awards and/or cost modifications for Unscheduled Maintenance Projects during the fiscal period of July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. All expenditure appropriation adjustments will be off-set by an equal adjustment to revenue in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund.

SB/mb
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Billy Garcia, IGSA Manager
Christopher Dwight, General Services Superintendent
Wendy Davies, Finance Manager
Alexandria Girometti, Accounting Assistant
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 4, Packet Page 288 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AUTHORIZING BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS OF $1,125,458.06 BETWEEN THE PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE POM B267 RENOVATE BUILDING PROJECT & OMC B7693 REPLACE FLOORING PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS NOT EXCEEDING $350,000 INDIVIDUALLY FOR UNSCHEDULED PRESIDIO MAINTENANCE PROJECTS THROUGH JUNE 30, 2024 ***IGSA***
WHEREAS, a 2023-2024 budget adjustment is needed to authorize the payment of the following Army project costs in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund: (1) $394,708.19 for POM B267 Renovate Building, and (2) $730,749.87 for OMC B7693 Replace Flooring project; WHEREAS, this appropriation adjustment is fully funded by an Intergovernmental Support Agreement (“IGSA”) Individual Job Order (IJO) award issued by the Department of Defense;
WHEREAS, all Department of Defense (Army) project services provided by the City require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation rather than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation. Under NEPA, the action to appropriate funds does not require a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC).

In some cases, these subsequent discretionary projects may also require environmental determination in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 5, Packet Page 289 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to:

1. Appropriate $1,125,458.06 in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Authority Fund to the Presidio of Monterey Unscheduled Maintenance Projects, Option Year 6 - POM account [650-310-3199-6001-5027] for the POM B267 Renovate Building Project & OMC B7693 Replace Flooring Project;

2. Increase the Special Project Reimbursement Fees revenue account [650-310-3199- 3658] in the amount of $1,125,458.06; and,

3. Make the necessary administrative budget appropriations and/or transfers, none of which may individually exceed $350,000 when the Department of Defense executes and issues Individual Job Order awards and/or cost modifications for Unscheduled Maintenance Projects during the fiscal period of July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. All expenditure appropriation adjustments will be offset by an equal adjustment to revenue in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 6, Packet Page 290 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Matthew Buggert, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Rezone 581 Larkin Street from R-3- 6 to R-3-6-H-2 as a City Historic Resource and Authorize a Mills Act Contract (Property Tax Savings Program for Historic Structures) (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an ordinance to rezone 581 Larkin Street from R-3-6 to R-3-6-H-2 as a City Historic Resource; and

2. Adopt a resolution authorizing a Mills Act Contract (property tax savings program for historic structures) for 581 Larkin Street.

VALUE DRIVERS:

HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND DIVERSITY – Preserve, promote, and maintain our City’s historic and cultural resources through responsible stewardship and historic preservation that highlights the contributions and perspectives of all people who are a part of Monterey’s diverse history.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey is one of the most historic cities in the United States; therefore, the City has placed value on these resources by identifying the preservation of historic resources as a goal in the Historic Preservation Element. One of the ways this goal is achieved is through the implementation of General Plan Program a.1.7, which states: “Maintain and update the City’s historic incentive programs to support historic property owners, including grant programs, land use incentives, flexible zoning and parking standards, property tax relief, Historic Building Code, and expedited processing for historic resources” (City of Monterey 2005, Amended 2019, pg. 109).

H-2 zoning is intended to identify and protect historic resources in the City that would be recognized as resources of local historic importance, and their significance would not be generally recognized outside the immediate area of the Monterey Peninsula.

Mills Act contracts provide a financial benefit to property owners to offset the additional maintenance costs associated with ownership of a historic property. Through the contract, the City is assured that the historic property will be maintained.

Date: 11/7/2023
Item No.: 20.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 1, Packet Page 291 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Each property owner pays approximately 1% annually of the assessed value of their property in property taxes and approximately 20% of those property taxes are passed through to the City.

Most Mills Act contract properties recognize 40-60% savings in taxes, depending on how the County Assessor estimates the site’s rental rate. The property was recently purchased for $1.4 million in January 2023.

The following chart represents the approximate reduction in property taxes that would be passed to the City under the Mills Act:

Property Address Standard Property
Tax
Standard Tax Passed
to City (20%)
Mills Act Rate Tax
Passed to City (40-
60% Reduction)
581 Larkin Street $14,000.00 $2,800.00 $1,120.00-$1,680.00 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the addition of H-2 overlay zoning to the property will not result in significant changes to land use limitations and will maintain a designated historic building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The addition of H-2 overlay zoning would not impact a resource of critical concern. The project proposes maintenance of a historic building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The project would have a positive impact in that a historic resource would be maintained. The environment is not particularly sensitive as the site is developed with an existing building and landscaped areas.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The addition of H-2 overlay zoning would add an additional layer of protection to the resource. The project proposes maintenance of a building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. No cumulative impacts would occur.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances exist at the site. The building is an existing structure and the surrounding environment is an established residential area. The addition of H-2 overlay zoning would add an additional layer of protection to the resource. The Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 2, Packet Page 292 project proposes to maintain the structure consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Therefore, a significant effect would not occur.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project proposes maintenance of a building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The property is not located on or viewable from a state scenic highway. Therefore, impacts to scenic highways would not occur.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project site is not listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project would have no impact to hazardous waste sites.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The building is eligible as a local historic resource and the addition of H-2 overlay zoning would add an additional layer of protection to the resource. The building maintenance would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to rezone or approve a Mills Act Contract for the property.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The owner of the 1900 one-and-a-half story Queen Anne cottage residence at 581 Larkin Street (also historically known as 581 Scott Street) requested H-2 (City Historic Resource) overlay zoning and to enter a Mills Act Contract with the City of Monterey. As required by Monterey City Code, an intensive historic survey and a detailed maintenance schedule that covers the life of the contract were submitted as part of the application.

Historic Zoning
As required by Monterey City Code, an intensive historic survey and a detailed maintenance schedule that covers the life of the contract were submitted as part of the application. According to the intensive survey prepared by Architectural Historian Meg Clovis, the subject property qualifies as a local historic resource based on California Register Criterion 1 and 2:
 Criterion 1: Properties can be eligible under California Register Criterion One (Event) if they are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The Frank Hellam House is eligible under this criterion because it is representative of residential development in lower Old Town during the last quarter of the 19th century.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 3, Packet Page 293  Criterion 2: The property is eligible under California Register Criterion Two (Person) as the family home of Frank Hellam, who had several businesses in Monterey, is the only extant building that was owned and continuously occupied by Mr. Hellam and his family.

Character-defining features of the residence include wood siding with corner boards, all original window and door openings, a brick chimney, an asymmetrical façade defined by hipped and gabled roofs, a front dormer with hexagonal and coursed shingles, and gable returns, a shed roof dormer with three window openings, and a front entrance including a door, surround, and front porch. Additional character-defining features of the property include the tobacco warehouse, garage, and masonry wall (see below images). The property retains six of the seven aspects of its historic integrity, including location, design, setting, materials, feeling, and association. The workmanship aspect of integrity is not applicable to the property as it does not include physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
581 Larkin Street
(Photo from Historic Report)
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 4, Packet Page 294 Tobacco Warehouse
Garage
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 5, Packet Page 295 Masonry Wall
Mills Act Contract
A Mills Act Contract is an agreement between the City of Monterey and the property owner of a City-designated historic building. The property owner benefits from a reduction in property taxes and the City is assured that the historic building will be preserved. The City’s Contract requires that the historic building be maintained in good condition. The Contract includes the following Conditions of Approval:

1. An identification plaque shall be installed describing the building as an historic resource.

The plaque text, design, and materials shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to installation;

2. The building shall be made available for an annual tour; and,

3. The property owner shall maintain the property in good general repair and make any or all repairs as necessary. The roof, exterior and interior walls, and electrical and plumbing systems will be inspected on a regular basis.

On September 14, 2023, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the historic zoning and Mills Act proposal. After discussion, the HPC voted to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the historic zoning, and voted to recommend to the City Council approval of the Mills Act contract.

On September 26, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property at 581 Larkin Street from R-3-6 to R-3-6-H-2 as a City Historic Resource.

LH/mb
Attachments: 1. Ordinance with Exhibit A (Map)
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 6, Packet Page 296

2. Resolution Authorizing Mills Act Contract with Exhibit A (Legal Description) and Exhibit B (Maintenance Schedule)

3. Intensive Historic Survey
e: John Scourkes, Applicant
Liam O’Brien, Part Property Owner
David McLoughlin, Part Property Owner
Meg Clovis, Architectural Historian
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 7, Packet Page 297 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
REZONING THE PROPERTY AT 581 LARKIN STREET AS A CITY HISTORIC RESOURCE FROM R-3-6 TO R-3-6-H-2
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, John Scourkes, applicant, and Liam O’Brien and David McLoughlin, owners of the residence at 581 Larkin Street, requested H-2 (City Historic Resource) overlay zoning (Exhibit A);
WHEREAS, adoption of H-2 zoning requires the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to recommend to the Planning Commission (PC) to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance rezoning the property;
WHEREAS, as required by Monterey City Code, an intensive historic survey (DPR 523B form) prepared by Qualified Architectural Historian Meg Clovis was submitted as part of the application;
WHEREAS, the subject property is significant under Criterion 1 (Event) as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The Frank Hellam House is eligible under this criterion because it is representative of residential development in lower Old Town during the last quarter of the 19th century. The property is eligible under California Register Criterion 2 (Person) as the family home of Frank Hellam, who had several businesses in Monterey and is the only extant building that was owned and continuously occupied by Mr. Hellam and his family; WHEREAS, the HPC, at a properly noticed public hearing on September 14, 2023, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons, and adopted a resolution recommending that the PC recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the property and Mills Act contract;
WHEREAS, the PC, at a properly noticed public hearing on September 26, 2023, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons, and adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the property; WHEREAS, the City Council, at a properly noticed public hearing on November 7, 2023, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons; and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 8, Packet Page 298 2 because the addition of H-2 overlay zoning to the property will not result in significant changes to land use limitations and will maintain a designated historic property consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Mills Act contracts require that all work performed subsequent to entering into a contract is consistent with those standards. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The addition of H-2 overlay zoning would not impact a resource of critical concern. The environment is not particularly sensitive as it is developed with an existing building and paved areas.

Therefore, a significant effect would not occur.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report. The property is not located on or viewable from a state scenic highway. Therefore, impacts to scenic highways would not occur.

The project would have no impact to hazardous waste sites.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 9, Packet Page 299 3 SECTION 3: The property at 581 Larkin Street is hereby rezoned from R-3-6 to R-3-6-H2, as shown in Exhibit A.

SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ___ day of ______ , 202__, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 10, Packet Page 300

EXHIBIT A
581 Larkin Street
Subject property
Rezoning from R-3-6
to R-3-6-H-2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 11, Packet Page 301 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AUTHORIZING A MILLS ACT CONTRACT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 581 LARKIN STREET WHEREAS, John Scourkes, applicant, and Liam O’Brien and David McLoughlin, owner, of the residence at 581 Larkin Street, submitted the required application and information to enter into a Mills Act Contract with the City of Monterey, including a detailed legal description (Exhibit A) and maintenance schedule (Exhibit B) that covers the life of the contract; WHEREAS, a Mills Act Contract is an agreement between the City of Monterey and the property owner of a City-designated historic building;
WHEREAS, the property owner benefits from a reduction in property taxes and the City is ensured that the historic building will be preserved; WHEREAS, granting the contract will serve to offset the costs of maintaining the resource;
WHEREAS, the City could expect to receive reduced tax revenue as a result of the Mills Act Contract in the amount of approximately $706.00-$1,059.00 annually; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the property meets the eligibility requirements for the Mills Act Program in that it meets the eligibility requirements for H-2 overlay zoning and the property owner has applied to rezone the property, and granting the contract will serve to offset the costs of maintaining the resource;
WHEREAS, the authorization of the Mills Act contract will be in effect 30 days after City Council approval of the rezone;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the addition of H-2 overlay zoning to the property will not result in significant changes to land use limitations and will maintain a designated historic building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Mills Act contracts require that all work performed subsequent to entering into a contract is consistent with those standards. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The addition of H-2 overlay zoning would not impact a resource of critical concern. The project proposes maintenance of a historic property consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The project would have a Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 12, Packet Page 302 2 positive impact in that a historic resource would be maintained. The environment is not particularly sensitive (existing building and landscaped areas).

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances exist at the site. The building is an existing structure and the surrounding environment is an established residential area. The addition of H-2 overlay zoning would add an additional layer of protection to the resource. The project proposes to maintain the structure consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Therefore, a significant effect would not occur.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project proposes maintenance of a property consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The property is not located on or viewable from a state scenic highway. Therefore, impacts to scenic highways would not occur.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The building is eligible as a local historic resource and the addition of H-2 overlay zoning would add an additional layer of protection to the resource. The property maintenance would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The project would not cause an adverse change to the historic resource; and,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes a Mills Act contract for the property at 581 Larkin Street, with Exhibit A (Legal Description) and Exhibit B (Maintenance Schedule) attached hereto, which may be executed 30 days after City Council approval of the rezone.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ___ day of _________, 202__, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 13, Packet Page 303 3 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 14, Packet Page 304

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
581 Larkin Street
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 15, Packet Page 305 10/25/2023 Hellam House 1
City of Monterey Note: Frequency of repairs continues beyond 2023 based on interval proposed.

Mills Act Maintenance Schedule
Revised Maintenance Schedule per HPC condition of approval - 09/14/2023 Property Address: 581 LARKIN ST
Scope of Work: Main House, Tobacco Warehouse, Garage, TAC Room, Wash House, and Landscape Owner Name: Liam O'Brien / David McLoughlin Note: Dollar amounts will be revied at 10 year intervals and adjusted for inflation as appropriate.

Owner Telephone No: 650 603 1170
Contract Year
Frequency 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Concrete
Repair/ Maintenance 15,000.00 25,000.00 9,500.00 9,500.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Electrical
Repair/ Maintenance 25,594.78 7,500.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 15,000.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 Plumbing
Repair/ Maintenance 9,174.68 14,000.00 8,500.00 2,500.00 6,000.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 Windows/Doors
Repair/ Maintenance 8,500.00 2,500.00 4,500.00 3,000.00 2,800.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 4,500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 4,500.00 HVAC
Repair/ Maintenance 15,000.00 7,500.00 4,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 Hardwood Flooring
Repair / Maintenance 16,000.00 8,500.00 6,200.00 2,800.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Fireplace
Repair/ Maintenance 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 Framing
Repair/ Maintenance 49,477.50 1,800.00 5,500.00 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paint Interior / Exterior
Repair/ Maintenance 46,939.89 18,000.00 9,800.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 Insulation
Repair/ Maintenance 8,075.00 5,600.00 2,200.00 1,800.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Appliances
Repair/ Maintenance 37,818.58 3,800.00 2,400.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 Kitchen
Repair/ Maintenance 45,000.00 12,000.00 6,500.00 750.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 Building Materials
Repair/ Maintenance 30,079.16 7,500.00 7,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 Millwork
Repair / Maintenance 7,200.00 4,800.00 3,300.00 4,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 Roof
Repair / Maintenance 27,070.32 11,500.00 6,500.00 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 Landscape - Deck / Fence / Planting / Irrigation
Repair / Maintenance 124,697.27 32,000.00 28,000.00 24,000.00 30,000.00 8,500.00 8,500.00 8,500.00 8,500.00 8,500.00 8,500.00 ANNUAL TOTAL 453,127.18 137,000.00 99,400.00 57,850.00 67,800.00 26,250.00 23,000.00 28,250.00 23,000.00 24,750.00 28,000.00 RUNNING TOTAL 453,127.18 590,127.18 689,527.18 747,377.18 815,177.18 841,427.18 864,427.18 892,677.18 915,677.18 940,427.18 968,427.18

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 16, Packet Page 306 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Primary # ___________________________________________
HRI # ______________________________________________
Trinomial ___________________________________________
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code ______ Reviewer ______________________ Date _______________________

Page 1 of 12 ends

P1. Other Identifier: 581 Scott Street
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Monterey and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Monterey Date 2012 T ; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; Mount Diablo B.M. c. Address 581 Scott Street City Monterey Zip 93940
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10S:; 598633 mE/ 4051450 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN 001-382-020
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting and boundaries) The Frank Hellam House is located on large lot that runs along Scott Street, sloping down from Larkin Street to Van Buren Street. The one-and-a-half story Queen Anne cottage is clad with channel rustic drop siding. Two distinct sections create the roughly L-shaped plan. The narrow western section has a front facing gable that projects beyond the plane of the eastern section. A non-original horizontal window faces the street. The west elevation has three double hung windows and a non-original door that leads into a back bedroom. A hipped roof tops the eastern section of the house and features a large gabled dormer with a double-hung window. Hexagonal shingles fill the apex of the gable and coursed shingles cover the lower half. The sides of the dormer are covered with roofing shingles. The east elevation has a shed dormer with three non-original jalousie windows. A brick chimney is located on this elevation. The front entrance and small stoop are located at the intersection of the two building volumes. The porch has a flat roof. The front door is set within a pedimented surround. The upper half of the door is glazed while two panels occupy the lower half. Door hardware (Continued on p. 3) P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #) Front Elevation,
12/2022
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: 1900 Historic
Prehistoric Both
Newspaper, Sanborn Maps
*P7. Owner and Address:

Liam O’Brien
257 Moffett Blvd.

Mountain View, CA. 94043
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Meg Clovis
14024 Reservation Rd.

Salinas, CA 93908
*P9. Date Recorded: 12/2022
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2, Single family residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) *P11. Report Citation: (cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Archives & Architecture: Reconnaissance Survey Lower Old Town, Monterey, CA. 2005
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List)
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 17, Packet Page 307 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary # __________________________________________
HRI # _____________________________________________

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 12 ends

*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Frank Hellam House B1. Historic Name: Frank Hellam House
B2. Common Name: 581 Scott Street
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential *B5. Architectural Style: Queen Anne
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alteration, and date of alterations) Constructed in 1900; Rear additions and window alterations (no permits in building file)
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Garage, Warehouse, Sheds, Masonry wall B9a. Architect: None b. Builder: George Miller
*B10. Significance: Theme Architecture & Physical Development Area Monterey
Period of Significance: 1900 - 1936 Property Type: Building Applicable Criteria: CR 2 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Address integrity.)
On January 20, 1900, the Monterey Cypress newspaper reported “the sale to Frank Hellam of the Climax Cigar Store of a lot on Scott Street between Larkin and Van Buren. Mr. Hellam will at once commence the erection of a handsome cottage theron, the contract already been let to George Miller.” Frank and his wife Amelia raised seven children in the house, which was also home to his father John, a brick mason. Other relatives cycled in and out of the house over the years as well. The address was originally 517 Scott Street and was changed to 581 Scott Street in 1929. The Scott Street house stayed in the Hellam family for over 123 years. Frank Hellam added on to the property, and eventually owned every lot along Scott Street between the corners of Van Buren and Larkin. His last purchase was a lot on the corner of Van Buren and Scott, which he bought from Josefa Martinez Matthews in 1903. Josefa and William Matthews had built an adobe house on this corner which is pictured on the 1884 Assessor’s Map of Monterey. The 1895 Sanborn Map of Monterey indicates that a stone house had replaced the adobe. Frank Hellam demolished the Martinez-Matthews House, and his father John Hellam used the stone to build a masonry wall along Scott Street. (Continued on p. 7) (This space reserved for official comments.)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes (List attributes and codes): HP46 (wall), HP4 (ancillary buildings)
*B12. References:

Monterey Historic Preservation Ordinance;
Lower Old Town Context Statement & Survey, 2005;
Sanborn Maps; 1884 Assessor’s Map (Monterey);
Building File, Monterey Building Dept.; National Register Bulletin 15; Polk’s City Directories; U.S. Census & Voter Registration Records; Monterey Newspapers; Hellam
Collection, Monterey History & Art Assn.

B13. Remarks
*B14. Evaluator: Meg Clovis
*Date of Evaluation: 12/2022
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 18, Packet Page 308 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 3 of 12 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 12/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
P3a. Description (continued)
appears original. Most of the original fenestration is double hung however two casement windows, located on the front and east elevations, have multiple panes in the upper sash. The subject property is in fair condition. It appears that very few changes have been made since its construction in 1900. This is corroborated by the City’s building file which has no records of permitted alterations or additions.

Physical evidence and Sanborn Maps indicate that some new windows have been installed and that the original rear porch was filled in with bathroom, storage, and kitchen additions by 1926.

The Hellam House lacks many of the distinctive characteristics typically found in good examples of Queen Anne cottages, such as cut-away bays, wall texture variations, an extensive porch, and decorative spindlework. The two distinct volumes, defined by the gable and hipped roofs, is not a typical Queen Anne ground plan. This is due to the subject property’s construction history. Per Richard Hellam, Frank Hellam’s great grandson, the hipped roof section of the house (which consists of a single room) was originally a cottage at the Hotel Del Monte. It was moved to the lot in 1900 and Frank’s father, John Hellam, a brick mason by trade, constructed the brick chimney. George Miller, Frank’s contractor, attached the front gabled section to the cottage. Originally the front gabled section extended only to the rear roof line of the hipped roof. By 1905 the house had been enlarged to its current footprint, however the attic had not been converted into a second floor and the chimney was not yet constructed (see Figure 11).

Figure 1: Arrows indicate additions on rear elevation.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 19, Packet Page 309 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 4 of 12 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 12/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Character-defining features include:
▪ Wood siding with corner boards
▪ All original window and door openings
▪ Brick chimney
▪ Asymmetrical façade defined by hipped and gabled roofs ▪ Front dormer with hexagonal and coursed shingles, and gable returns. ▪ Shed roof dormer with three window openings
▪ Front entrance including door, surround, and front porch Outbuildings
The number and locations of outbuildings on the property have fluctuated throughout the years.

Currently there are five wood frame outbuildings on the property including a garage, a former wash house, an equipment shed, a former tack room, and a former tobacco storage shed. The board and batten garage and tobacco storage shed are located on the western section of the lot adjacent to Larkin Street. The storage shed has a vented cupola. The 1926 Sanborn Map pictures both of these structures and the tack room behind the house.

Figure 2: 1926 Sanborn Map showing location of outbuildings. Extant outbuildings are circled.

Three other outbuildings are located behind the house including the wash house, tack room and equipment shed.

Sanborn Maps from 1905, 1912, and 1926 illustrate a number of outbuildings that have stood on the property over the years. The majority were concentrated in the upper western section of the lot. In 1905 there was a barn, four small sheds (possibly chicken coops) and a small shed (possibly an outhouse) behind the house. In the 1912 map the garage and more small sheds are visible, the latter along the southern property line. The 1926 Map (see Figure 2) indicates that a few of the small sheds on the southern property line still existed along with the garage. By this time the barn had been torn down and ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 20, Packet Page 310 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 5 of 12 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 12/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
replaced with the tobacco warehouse1 and another storage shed (no longer extant) had been constructed on the corner of Van Buren and Scott Streets.

Figure 3: Garage
Figure 4: Tobacco Warehouse
1 Per Richard Hellam, the wood from the demolished stable was used to build the tobacco storage shed.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 21, Packet Page 311 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 6 of 12 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 12/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Figure 5: Equipment Shed
Figure 6: Wash House
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 22, Packet Page 312 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 7 of 12 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 12/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Other Features
The 1884 Assessor’s Map and the 1888 Sanborn Map of
Monterey shows the Martinez-Matthews adobe that once
existed on the corner of Van Buren and Scott Streets. The 1895 Sanborn Map indicates that the adobe house had
been replaced by a stone structure. A concrete retaining wall and steps indicate the former location of the
residence. Frank Hellam demolished the stone house and
its outbuildings by 1905. His father John used the rock from the demolished house to build the masonry wall that runs along Scott Street.2
Frank Hellam built a small frame house up from the
former location of the Martinez-Matthews House (visible on the 1912 Sanborn Map). This house was demolished in
1963. The entire lot is overgrown but there is evidence that it was once landscaped with planting beds and garden
paths.

The garage, tobacco storage shed, and masonry wall can
be considered additional character-defining features.

Figure 7: Tack Room
B10. Significance (continued)
Frank Woodhull Hellam Sr. (1868-1936) was born in Pontiac, Michigan. He left school at 11 and came west with his father John. They settled for a short time in Monterey and then returned east. Frank returned to Monterey in 1887 and at the age of 19 opened up a small boot black stand next door to Adolpho Sanchez’s Bohemian Saloon, located on the corner of Franklin and Alvarado Streets. When the saloon closed, he opened the first Climax Cigar Store at 420 Main Street (now Alvarado). From there he moved to the ground floor of the Monterey Hotel at 404 Alvarado Street. In 1933 one last move took him to 423 Alvarado Street which is still the location of Hellam’s Tobacco Store. Hellam’s is California’s oldest tobacco shop and Monterey’s oldest continuing operating business. The Hellam family owned and operated the store for more than 100 years, before selling to the current owners in 1999.

By 1908 Frank had built his business into the largest retail cigar store in the United States, however this great success was not enough for Frank. In 1898 he opened the Palace of Sweets, managed by his brother Clarence. In 1905 he opened the Climax Furniture Store. That same year he subdivided the southern portion of Block 70 into Hellam’s Subdivision (Hellam Street is named for him) and got into the real estate business. He owned another tobacco store in Pacific Grove and a gas station in Chualar.

He was the agent for the National Brewing Company and the Union Ice Company. He could be seen driving to and from his many businesses behind the wheel of his famous rattletrap roadster “September Morn” which often made headlines in its own right. He gave generously to build a 2 Personal communication with Richard Hellam, December 17, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 23, Packet Page 313 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 8 of 12 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 12/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
to build a Carnegie Library in Monterey and was elected to the Board of Freeholders, who drafted the City Charter. Frank loved his adopted town and in fact named his first-born Monterey.3 Figure 8: Frank Hellam in front of his
boot black stand, c. 1900
Courtesy of the History Room, Monterey
Public Library
Figure 9: The Climax Cigar
Store in the Monterey Hotel
c. 1903. Courtesy of the History
Room, Monterey Public Library
3 Monterey “Monty” Hellam became a well-known judge in Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 24, Packet Page 314 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 9 of 12 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 12/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
A biography of prominent Monterey citizens included Frank Hellam in its pages, writing:
“His whole career is splendidly creditable. Suffering from the handicap of being crippled,4 he has nevertheless won success in business, and by reason of his handicapped condition has been made most sympathetic toward others. Frank Hellam’s good cheer and kindliness, his generous charity, have been the factors which have contributed so largely toward making his life an inspiration to others; all Monterey knows and loves and honors Frank Hellam; both town and county are proud of his success and exemplary citizenship.”5
Figure 10: Frank Hellam store at 423 Alvarado Street. Courtesy of the History Room, Monterey Public Library
In 2005 the Frank Hellam House was surveyed as part of the Lower Old Town Context Statement and Reconnaissance Survey.
6 No California Historic Resource Status Code was assigned to the property however the report stated that “the site appears to have a number of potential associations that require a more intensive level of investigation.”
4 Frank Hellam’s right leg was paralyzed due to a childhood accident. Notice his crutch in Figure 8. 5 History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties, California. Vol. II. Clarke Publishing Co., Chicago, 1925, p. 87. 6 Archives & Architecture. Reconnaissance Survey Lower Old Town, Monterey, CA., for the City of Monterey, 2005.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 25, Packet Page 315 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 10 of 12 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 12/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Evaluation for Significance
Historians use National Register Bulletin 15
7 as a guide when evaluating a property’s significance
whether on a local, state, or national level. As a first step, to determine whether or not a property is significant, it must be evaluated within its historic context. The 2005 reconnaissance survey and context statement by Archives & Architecture provides this context under the identified theme of architecture and physical development. Specifically, the Hellam residence represents the late 19th century residential development of the area.

Figure 11: View of Frank Hellam House, c. 1905. The barn is visible in the photo’s right corner and the residence’s second floor had not been constructed yet.

The City of Monterey’s Historic Zoning Ordinance (Article 15) reiterates the role of National Register Bulletin 15 in the evaluation of historic resources and the City’s adopted eligibility criteria for H-2 zoning8is cited in Section 38-76. Properties eligible for H-2 zoning must meet either the National Register criteria or the California Register criteria and are generally described as historic event, person, design, or information potential and are fully defined in National Register Bulletin 15, California PRC 5024.1, and CCR Title 14 Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 et. seq. For the purposes of this evaluation, the California Register criteria is used.

Properties can be eligible for California Register Criterion 1 (Event) if they are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. This can be a specific event, pattern of events, or trend. The Frank Hellam House is eligible under Criterion 1 as representative of residential development in lower Old Town during the last quarter of the 19th century. The Lower Old Town Context Statement relates, “As in other communities throughout the United States, this late - nineteenth-century neighborhood saw the erection of Victorian residences such as those of the Finch, Few, and Hellam families. In the study area, the late-nineteenth-century houses were commonly Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, and Shingle style.”
7 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Park Service. 1998. 8 H-2 zoning is intended to identify and protect historic resources in the City that would be recognized as resources with local historic importance and their historic importance would not be generally recognized outside the immediate area of the Monterey Peninsula.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 26, Packet Page 316 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 11 of 12 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 12/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
The Frank Hellam House is eligible under California Register Criterion Two (Person) as the family home of Frank Hellam, who built the house in 1900 and lived there until his death in 1936. Frank Hellam had several businesses in Monterey in leased premises. The house located at 581 Scott is the only extant building that was owned and continuously occupied by Mr. Hellam and his family.

Properties can be eligible under California Register Criterion Three (Design) if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or that represent the work of a master; or that possess high artistic values. The Frank Hellam House lacks many of the distinctive features associated with the Queen Anne style. It’s awkward massing, due to its piecemeal construction history, does not achieve the irregular composition the style is known for. There are good, neighboring examples of the Queen Anne style including 462 Van Buren, 504 Van Buren, and 678 Van Buren. In short, the Hellam House does not embody the distinctive characteristics of the Queen Anne style. The house was constructed by George Miller who is not considered a master builder. Finally, is not eligible for the third part of Criterion Three because it does not possess high artistic values and does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts.

The Frank Hellam House is not eligible under California Register Criterion Four (Information Potential) because there is no evidence in the historic record that the building may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

Integrity
Integrity is defined as the ability of a property to convey its significance. There are seven aspects of integrity including Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association.

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. The Frank Hellam House is in its original location.

Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property. The rear porch on the Frank Hellam House was filled in, a window was added to the gabled end on the front elevation, and jalousie windows were installed in a few window openings. However, the house still retains the majority of its character-defining features and therefore its original Queen Anne style elements.

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. The Frank Hellam House retains its neighborhood setting.

Materials are the physical elements that were combined during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern to form a historic property. The Hellam House retains the majority of the exterior materials from its period of significance.9
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This aspect of integrity is not applicable to the Frank Hellam House. 9 The Period of Significance for the Hellam House ranges from 1900, the year it was constructed, to 1936, the year of Frank Hellam’s death.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 27, Packet Page 317 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 12 of 12 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 12/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. The Hellam House retains the majority of its physical features and is able to convey the building’s connection with the theme of late 19th century residential growth in Monterey.

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 581 Scott Street was the home of Frank Hellam for 36 years and has changed little since he lived there.

Summary: The Frank Hellam House retains six of the seven aspects of integrity. One aspect is not applicable.

Conclusion
The Frank Hellam House meets California Register eligibility criteria 1 and 2 at the local level, and therefore meets the requirements for inclusion in the City of Monterey’s adopted survey list and for H-2 zoning.

Figure 12: Rock wall constructed by John Hellam
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 20., Item Page 28, Packet Page 318 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Provide Direction to Staff about Vehicle Storage Facilities and Small-Scale Wholesale, Distribution and Storage Uses in the I-R Zoning District with a Multifamily Housing Overlay Zoning Designation (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council provide direction to staff about vehicle storage facilities and small-scale wholesale, distribution and storage uses in the I-R Zoning District with a Multifamily Housing Overlay Zoning Designation.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City is preparing a new Housing Element in compliance with State law requirements. The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is 3,654 housing units. To increase housing supply, the City will consider eliminating Vehicle Storage Facilities and Small Scale Wholesale, Distribution, and Storage Uses in the Multifamily Housing Overlay Zoning District. The City Council will consider this policy decision near the end of 2023.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Date: 11/7/2023
Item No.: 21.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 1, Packet Page 319 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

1. Applicant can prepare plans and submit an application for a new Vehicle Parking use.

The City would then process use permit and environmental review. The City could approve, conditionally approve, or deny this use. The applicant will incur substantial costs to enter into a financial relationship and prepare the necessary technical plans.

2. The City could adopt an Urgency Ordinance prohibiting new vehicle storage facilities and small-scale wholesale, distribution, and storage uses until the Housing Element is approved.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey was approached by a development team regarding vehicle storage facilities along Garden Road. The development team is interested in building a new Monterey Motorsport Park II at 2400 Garden Road. A project brochure is attached. The site is zoned I-R130-RA-ES-MF (Industrial District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter, and Multifamily Residential Overlay Districts).

Background
The City’s Zoning Code contains an Industrial Zoning classification. Originally, the intent was to allow manufacturing businesses. The City Code states that, “The I-R Industrial, Administration, and Research District is intended to provide an environment exclusively for and conducive to the development of modern, large-scale administrative facilities, research institutions, and specialized manufacturing organizations, including non-nuisance production, distribution, and storage of goods, but no raw materials processing or bulk handling.” As time passed, the district became dominated by offices versus manufacturing uses.

In 2018, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 3588) to allow Vehicle Storage uses subject to a use permit in the I-R Zoning District. Two projects have since been constructed. The units are used to house private car collections and oftentimes have luxury amenities included. The spaces are also evolving into flex industrial condominiums to allow for Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 2, Packet Page 320 businesses. The City’s current definition of Vehicle Storage is becoming dated as to how these spaces are utilized. Although unrelated to this use, staff oftentimes receives inquiries about various storage uses such as mini-storage in the I-R District.

In 2019, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance and Map (Ordinance 3594) to create a multifamily housing overlay on certain I-R zoned properties such as 2400 Garden Road. The City Code states that “The Multifamily Residential Overlay District is intended to facilitate the provision of multifamily residential uses to address the housing shortage in the City of Monterey and promote infill development and workforce housing, which may encourage affordable housing near jobs”. In fulfillment of this vision, one multi-family housing project is under construction at 2300 Garden Road. The project provides 64 residential units and 12 will be deed-restricted to low and moderate-income households. The City also approved two other projects at 2000 and 2600 Garden Road but the developer is considering new project concepts at these sites and the City expects the new concepts to be submitted relatively soon.

As the Council is well aware, the City is now working on its Housing Element to accommodate 3,654 housing units. As a result, the Multi-Family Overlay District is becoming important in the City meeting its Regional Housing Need targets. Staff will be recommending that the Council consider a policy to eliminate Vehicle Storage Facilities and Small-Scale Wholesale, Distribution, and Storage Uses in the I-R Zoning District so that additional housing can be accommodated. The Housing Element will be approved by the end of 2023 or early 2024.

Zoning changes will immediately follow. Of course, the challenge is that additional water beyond the onsite credits may not be available until 2025 or later.

Due to the potential conflict in policy direction, staff is requesting Council feedback. If the developer proceeds, they will enter into financial arrangements and expend a considerable amount of money on plans, etc. If the City changes policy direction, it could be a costly decision.

Attachments: 1. Brochure
e: Ernie Lostrom
Ralph Borelli
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 3, Packet Page 321 35,000 SF OF FLEX CONDOS COMING

SOON TO MONTEREY
MONTEREYMOTORSPORTPARK.COM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 4, Packet Page 322 MONTEREY MOTORSPORT PARK II.

THE NEXT EVOLUTION OF FLEX CONDOS.

Monterey Motorsport Park II will be located on Garden Road in Monterey, California, just minutes from our most recently completed project, Monterey Motorsport Park.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 5, Packet Page 323 A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
1,179
1,179
1,179
1,416
1,179
1,179
1,179
UNIT
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
SQ. FT.
1,179
1,179
1,179
1,416
1,179
1,179
1,179
UNIT SQ. FT.

B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
1,496
1,496
1,496
931
1,163
931
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
1,496
1,496
1,496
1,496
1,496
1,496
1,496
Dennis Chambers
408.605.6760
[email protected]
DRE # 00475577

CONTACT OUR
BROKERAGE TEAM:

Gordon McCall
831.372.9311
[email protected]
DRE # 02190560
Ernie Lostrom
831.646.1000
[email protected]
DRE # 01215980
UNIT A1

RESERVED
UNIT A8

RESERVED
UNIT A7

RESERVED
UNIT B1

RESERVED
UNIT B7

RESERVED

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 6, Packet Page 324

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 7, Packet Page 325 Monterey Motorsport Park II is a flex condo facility that will provide ownership opportunities of spaces that can provide a work-life balance for the users, and flexibility in use for a variety of uses including start-up and individual proprietor business opportunities.
• Next-generation flex specialty space
• Mezzanines and roll up doors in every unit
• Fully fenced and secure
• Plumbing and water stubbed to each unit
• Internet ready
• 931 sq. ft. - 17,985 sq. ft.

FLEXIBILITY IN USE

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 8, Packet Page 326 SECOND OFFICE • SIDE BUSINESS • ECOMMERCE • SERVICE BUSINESS LEISURE RETREAT • HOBBY SPACE • COLLECTIBLES STORAGE

CUSTOMIZABLE MEZZANINES

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 9, Packet Page 327

GREEN PRACTICES

C-PACE FINANCING
& Green Practices
Low-cost, long-term financing for
green building practices
Loan repaid through a voluntary
property tax assessment
Allows us to fully support Marina’s
clean energy and sustainability
initiatives
Rooftop solar panels reduce owners’
costs by harnessing renewable
energy from the sun

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 10, Packet Page 328

HEAR FROM PREVIOUS OWNERS
I love, love, love our new garage-condo. The unit was the missing puzzle piece in our lives. No hype — it’s a dream come true. — Frank Darabont
Director of The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption I was looking for something that offered security, location, and class.

This is going to be a gathering point for some very interesting people.

A great place to go, hang out, talk, and make new friends.” — Robb Talbott
Founder and Former Owner, Talbott Vineyards
As a business owner with limited space, I was searching for a secure place to not only have additional office space, but also to have the storage needed for our trade show items and our work vehicle.

Monterey Motorsport Park checks all the boxes for my business.” — Stacey Smith
Owner , Priority Financial Group
“
”
“
”
“
”

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 11, Packet Page 329 Ralph N. Borelli
Case Swenson
Gordon McCall

OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The team behind Monterey Motorsport Park II consists
of the same visionaries behind the highly successful
Garage Unlimited of Monterey and Monterey Motorsport
Park. Together, the team has built and developed more
than 1,000 commercial condos — including over 250
flex condos - with another 185,000 sq. ft. coming soon.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 21., Item Page 12, Packet Page 330 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation from Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation from Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC).

VALUE DRIVERS:

This presentation is in accordance with the priority of protecting the environment through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and transparent and inclusive government which includes partnership with other government agencies.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

As a member of TAMC, it is important for the City to remain up to date on the programs and services provided by the agency.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with receiving this presentation.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to accept the presentation, or to request additional information from City or TAMC staff.

Date: 11/7/2023
Item No.: 22.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 22., Item Page 1, Packet Page 331 DISCUSSION:

The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) serves as Monterey County’s regional transportation planning agency and is a state designated agency responsible for planning and financial programming of transportation projects. TAMC is comprised of a twenty-three (23) member agency which consists of local officials from each of its twelve incorporated cities and five county supervisorial districts, and ex-officio members from seven public agencies.

TAMC’s mission is to develop and maintain a multimodal transportation system that enhances mobility, safety, access, environmental quality, and economic activities in Monterey County.

TAMC also administers Measure X, the three-eighths’ of one‑percent (3/8%) sales tax approved by 67.7% of Monterey County voters in 2017, the City of Monterey receives a portion of these Measure X funds for local transportation safety and multimodal improvements. Examples of Measure X funded, or partially funded projects include the Citywide Wayfinding Project and the Citywide Adaptive Traffic Signal System.

In this update to the City Council, Todd Muck, TAMC’s Executive Director, will provide an update on the development and implementation of regional projects and programs relevant to the City of Monterey.

NR/mg
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 22., Item Page 2, Packet Page 332 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by: Matthew Buggert, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: 1
st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend the City Zoning Ordinance to Authorize and Regulate a Limited Number and Type of Cannabis Businesses and Rezone Multiple Parcels to Include a Cannabis Business Overlay District; Exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an ordinance to amend Monterey City Code (MCC) Chapter 38 to authorize and regulate a limited number and type of cannabis businesses and rezone multiple parcels to be included in a Cannabis Business Overlay District; and

2. Adopt a resolution to accept the Planning Office determination that the project is exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

VALUE DRIVERS:

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The regulated cannabis businesses and rezoning would result in additional business diversity within the City in existing commercial areas. Taxes associated with the businesses would be derived from the City’s Cannabis Business License Tax (Measure J) passed in November 2022.

Initiative 21-0042, which, if passed, limits the ability of voters and state and local governments to raise revenues for government services, may affect whether the City can collect this tax.

Date: 11/7/2023
Item No.: 23.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 1, Packet Page 333 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Based on the exemption review (Exhibit A to Attachment 2), the City’s General Plan EIR has adequately addressed the following issues, and no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3: aesthetics; agricultural resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils (fault rupture, seismic and geologic hazards, erosion, soils,); hazards/hazardous materials (use/disposal of hazardous materials, create hazard, exposure to hazardous materials, airport safety, emergency response); hydrology-water quality (water quality, groundwater, drainage, flood hazards); land use; mineral resources; noise (noise increases, vibration); population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation (conflicts with program or policy, hazardous design, emergency access); and utilities (water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal); and cumulative impacts.

The following project impacts have been analyzed and determined to result in no impact or to be less than significant due to substantial mitigation resulting from General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the City: forest resources; energy; geology and soils (paleontological resources); greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; hazards/hazardous materials (wildfire hazards); hydrologywater quality (conflicts with plans); transportation (conflict with CEQA Guidelines-VMT); tribal cultural resources; and utilities (infrastructure); wildfire. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183, and no further environmental analysis is required.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may choose to recommend edits to the proposed ordinance or choose not to adopt the ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

Background
On August 8, 2021, the City Council directed City staff to explore commercial cannabis retail sales and its potential in the City of Monterey. Retail establishments include both brick-andmortar storefront retail businesses (dispensaries) and delivery services. State law allows a City to decide whether to prohibit or allow retail storefront sales. If allowed by a local jurisdiction, State law establishes basic parameters for the use:
 Sales are allowed to occur from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The City may further limit hours of operation.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 2, Packet Page 334  Retail establishments may not be within 600 ft. of a K-12 school, day care or youth center. The City may impose additional zoning restrictions such as greater distances from schools and City parks, or require additional distances from existing cannabis retail establishments or other uses (see preliminary figure below with estimated applicable buffers).

The draft ordinance generally does not propose regulations more stringent than State law, with the exception of prohibiting cannabis storefronts from fronting Alvarado Street and the side streets within the Lighthouse Specific Plan area and C-2 zoned area along Wave Street.

Legal, fiscal, regulatory, and operational research and analysis were conducted from September 2020 through March 2021. On September 30, 2020, a cannabis policy framework was shared at a City Council study session, and on December 1, 2020, the “Roadmap to Cannabis” was presented at a regular Council meeting. These early presentations and discussions provided an outline for what would be needed to adopt cannabis regulations in Monterey.

In summary, the roadmap timeline was defined as follows:

1. Create a Starting Point – Receive public input, conduct background research, and review legal considerations.

Under State law, cannabis activities are not allowed within 600 feet of a K-12 school, day care or youth center (preliminary setbacks are depicted here); the City may impose additional zoning restrictions or additional distances of cannabis retail establishments from other existing uses.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 3, Packet Page 335

2. Decision Point – Based on public input, identify if a consensus is reached to move forward.

3. Prepare for Launch – Draft regulations, environmental review, and research cannabis retail selection process. The actions associated with this agenda report fall within this timeline step.

4. Launch – If there is consensus to move forward, issue permits and determine market demand.

5. Monitor & Regulate – Loophole analysis, track and monitor operators, review and collect revenues, identify and manage community impacts.

6. Review and Revise – Adjust regulations/ordinances, conditions of use, as necessary.

Public outreach began on January 7, 2021 with the launch of the City project webpage (“Have Your Say Monterey”) and an online survey. Public town hall meetings were conducted on January 26 and 28, 2021 to receive initial public input. An informational pamphlet and postcard return survey was distributed by the end of January 2021, and the associated postcard survey results were compiled by March 10, 2021.

On April 13, 2021, a Cannabis Retail Zones meeting was held, which discussed the public feedback and potential commercial areas of the City that could support new cannabis retail businesses. The City Council reviewed all public outreach to-date on May 4 and August 17 of 2021. Following input from these discussions, the City Council expressed their initial support for commercial cannabis. Staff was directed to move forward with the Cannabis Roadmap, which included consideration of as few as one and as many as three cannabis retailers total, in the downtown (except Alvarado Street), Lighthouse District, Cannery Row Business District (except Cannery Row itself), and to discuss both Cannery Row and the Monterey County Fairgrounds at some point in the future.

On December 21, 2021, City Council voted to approve a staff recommendation to: (1) develop regulations allowing no more than three retail permits (one each in Downtown, Lighthouse, and near Cannery Row), (2) prepare documents and efforts to regulate up to three retail businesses (Operating or Development Agreement), and (3) research and return to Council to consider a potential cannabis retail tax for the November 2022 election.

On July 25, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution 22-097, placing a Cannabis Business License Tax on the ballot for the November 2022 election. On November 8, 2022, the City’s Cannabis Business License Tax (Measure J) passed with more than 65 percent of the voters voting in the election approving the measure. However, whether the City can collect this tax may be affected by Initiative 21-0042 if it is passes on the November 2024 ballot.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 4, Packet Page 336 On May 2, 2023, the City Council considered the project description and provided updated guidance based on input from the public and from staff. On June 6, 2023, the City Council approved the project description with the following caveats: (1) allow one storefront retailer on North Fremont Street between Airport Road and Palo Verde Street, (2) allow up to two temporary cannabis events at the Monterey County Fairgrounds, (3) restrict access to retail storefront facilities, whether adult use, or medical, or both, to ages 21 and older, (4) authorize deliveries of medicinal cannabis to individuals 18 years and older to facilitate access to medicinal cannabis consistent with SB 1186 (Weiner), and (5) authorize one non-store front retailer requiring delivery of medicinal cannabis to be consistent with SB 1186 (Weiner).

To adopt the amendments that would allow for commercial cannabis retail in each respective area, review and approval through the Planning Commission and City Council are required.

Planning Commission authority is limited to the review and adoption of a Cannabis Business Overlay District. On October 23, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted two resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance for rezoning of certain parcels to allow for a Cannabis Business Overlay District, and to accept the Planning Office’s determination that the project is exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Monterey County Fairgrounds
The Monterey County Fairgrounds are owned
and operated by the County of Monterey’s
Seventh District Agricultural Association, and
business licenses and event permits are
managed by the City of Monterey. Under the
proposed amendments, two events at the
Monterey County Fairgrounds – specifically
associated with the “California Roots
Festival” and the “Rebels and Renegades
Music Festival” – may be issued permits by
the City per calendar year. The existing
events would be supplemented by the
cannabis retail opportunities and would
further support the existing North Fremont
business corridor.

Use Classification Consistency
Pursuant to Monterey City Code Zoning Ordinance Section 38-12, the Community Development Director must determine whether a specific use shall be deemed to be within one or more use classifications or not within any classification. The cannabis retail use has been found to be within existing use classifications (see below consistency table).

Up to two cannabis events per year would be
permitted at the Monterey County Fairgrounds.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 5, Packet Page 337 Zoning Use Definition Consistency
C-2 (Community Commercial District) Commercial Use
Classifications
Retail Sales. The retail sale of merchandise not specifically listed under another use classification. This classification includes department stores, clothing stores, and furniture stores, and businesses retailing the following goods: toys, hobby materials, handcrafted items, jewelry, cameras, photographic supplies, electronic equipment, records, sporting goods, kitchen utensils, hardware, appliances, art, antiques, art supplies and services, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, office supplies, bicycles, and new automotive parts and accessories (excluding service and installation).

1. Limited. Excludes furniture, hardware, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, and new automotive parts and accessories.

2. Pharmacies and Medical Supplies. Establishments primarily selling prescription drugs, medical supplies, and equipment.

3. Visitor-Oriented. Sale of arts and crafts, antiques, jewelry, clothing, books, toys, and gifts, designated for visitors. This classification includes arts and crafts studios, galleries and shops.

Consistent. The retail of
cannabis would include the
retail sale of merchandise not
specifically listed under
another use classification.

PC-LH (Lighthouse Specific Plan) Definitions
Retail Sales, Minor: An establishment that primarily
offers new or used goods for purchase by the consumer of such goods, excluding other such establishments more specifically described herein. This use category includes vehicle sales if such a use is conducted completely within an enclosed building and does not include outdoor display of vehicles.

Consistent. The retail of
cannabis would offer new
goods for purchase by the
consumer. Cannabis retail is
not excluded by other
establishments and does not
include vehicle sales.

PC-D (Downtown Specific Plan) Definitions
Retail Sales, Minor: An establishment that primarily
offers new or used goods for purchase by the consumer of such goods, excluding other such establishments more specifically described herein. This use category includes vehicle sales if such a use is conducted completely within an enclosed building and does not include outdoor display of vehicles.

Consistent. The retail of
cannabis would offer new
goods for purchase by the
consumer. Cannabis retail is
not excluded by other
establishments and does not
include vehicle sales.

PC-NF (North Fremont Specific Plan) Definitions
Retail Sales: An establishment that primarily offers new or used goods for purchase by the consumer of such goods, excluding other such establishments more specifically described herein.

Consistent. The retail of
cannabis would offer new
goods for purchase by the
consumer, and cannabis is not
excluded by other
establishments.

Analysis
The proposed ordinance authorizes and regulates cannabis businesses within the City. The ordinance details the type and number of licenses authorized within the City, location limitations, the application process for issuance of the permit, operational requirements of the businesses, requirements for distributors outside of the City, and temporary events. As proposed, the Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 6, Packet Page 338 authorization for new cannabis businesses would be focused on retail, would include regulations regarding a single distributor in compliance with state law, and refine existing City Code provisions addressing testing laboratories. The amendments would not allow the businesses to conduct cultivation, manufacturing, or microbusiness operations under other state cannabis license types.

Section 38-195(B) states that “Amendments to the zoning regulations shall be initiated by motion of the City Council or the Planning Commission, action of the Public Works Director, or by application of any resident, property owner or business owner in the city.” This application was initiated by the City Council and is consistent with this standard.

The following discussion addresses the purposes of the applicable governing documents. Some language has been excerpted or summarized for clarity:

The City of Monterey General Plan specifies that the City shall:

Maintain Fiscal Responsibility Goal a. Maintain and encourage a strong economic base which will provide tax income for City services, jobs for Monterey residents, and services for residents and visitors. Encourage civic and business decisions The zoning amendments would affect the four depicted zones, allowing up to one cannabis retail storefront in each colored area. Storefronts would be prohibited from facing Alvarado Street and southwest-to-northeast oriented streets in the New Monterey area. (Attached as Exhibit A to Attachment 1)
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 7, Packet Page 339 which provide taxes to support City services to residents and which provide employment opportunities to residents.

Policy a.1. Provide a balance between the economy, preservation of natural and historic resources, and preservation of residential areas and services.

Policy a.3. Explore ways to diversify the Monterey economy to provide higher paying jobs and a balance to cyclical elements of the visitor economy.

Policy a.4. Encourage small businesses and unique locally owned businesses.

Maintain Public Safety Goal e. Continue to provide exceptional public safety to assure that visitors and residents are not discouraged from visiting or shopping in Monterey.

There is benefit in diversifying economic opportunities to meet our City's General Plan vision of increasing the services to residents and visitors that can be provided by the City and a community that supports a strong economic base.

Purpose Consistency
Community Commercial (C-2) Zoning District – Wave Street The specific purposes of the C-2 zoning district are defined by Section 38-29, “to provide sites for retail shopping areas containing a wide variety of commercial establishments, including retail stores and businesses selling goods and specialty items, among other commercial uses. The zoning district’s development standards are intended to prevent significant adverse effects on residential uses adjoining a C-2 district.”
The ordinance amendments would enable commercial cannabis activities in the City’s existing community commercial district in an existing commercial area between two planning areas (Cannery Row District to the north and Lighthouse Specific Plan to the south). The ordinance would provide increased commercial opportunities for local business owners and provide a source of revenue within the City. The ordinance amendments would not enable cannabis retail adjacent to established residential neighborhoods that may result in a significant adverse effect.

Further, the commercial cannabis retail storefront(s) would be required to face Wave Street. By facing Wave Street, the store frontage(s) would be confined to those C-2 parcels within the Cannery Row Business District, would be oriented away from the Recreation Trail, and would prevent storefronts from directly facing cross streets that carry residents and visitors between uphill residential areas and Cannery Row. The siting criteria would assist to prevent adverse neighborhood compatibility effects for passersby through the C-2 zoning district.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 8, Packet Page 340 PC-LH: Planned Community – Lighthouse Specific Plan Area Policies within the Lighthouse Specific Plan that address compatibility and diverse economic opportunities include the following:

Goal 3.d states “Encourage improved new and existing neighborhood-serving businesses”. The Overlay area would apply over the Lighthouse Specific Plan area. At present, residents of the New Monterey and surrounding neighborhood areas are required to travel to nearby communities such as Seaside or Marina for access to commercial cannabis retail locations. The authorization to allow a cannabis storefront would provide a new neighborhood-serving business that would not require residents or visitors to travel further for a similar product.

PC-D: Planned Community – Downtown Specific Plan Area
Policies within the Downtown Specific Plan that emphasize ensuring an attractive inventory of business establishments include the following.

The Downtown Specific Plan Goal 3.a states “Develop and define an inventory of desirable and high quality business activities which are compatible with the Vision and which will attract visitors and encourage pedestrians to use the Downtown.” The proposed amendments would allow a use that is desired by members of the public and businesses, which would in turn generate pedestrians and visitors to the downtown area.

PC-NF: Planned Community – North Fremont Specific Plan Area Policies within the North Fremont Specific Plan that support neighborhood-serving commercial uses include the following.

The North Fremont Specific Plan Goal 2 states “Establish a range of business types throughout the corridor, including neighborhood-serving commercial, restaurants, full-service hotels and/or motels, and development that contain a mix of uses including retail on the street level and residential above or behind.” The proposed amendments would allow a use that is desired by members of the public and would expand the range of businesses serving nearby neighborhood residents and visitors within the North Fremont Specific Plan area.

Conclusion
The amendments to the City Code and Zoning Ordinance were identified from public input, business interest, and City Council public hearings. Generally, the new commercial cannabis retail use would diversify the City’s economic base and business opportunities. Additionally, the CEQA exemption review prepared for the ordinance confirms that the City’s General Plan EIR adequately addressed potential environmental issues, no new impacts peculiar to the project or site would occur, and no further environmental analysis is required.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 9, Packet Page 341 In conclusion, the Planning Commission and Staff recommend the City Council (1) amend Monterey City Code (MCC) Chapters 1, 7, 19, 22, and 38 to authorize and regulate a limited number and type of cannabis businesses and rezone multiple parcels to be included in a Cannabis Business Overlay District; and (2) adopt a resolution to accept the Planning Office determination that the project is exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

KC/LH/mb
Attachments: 1. Ordinance to Amend the City Code and Zoning Ordinance to Authorize and Regulate a Limited Number and Type of Cannabis Businesses and Rezone Multiple Parcels to Include a Cannabis Business Overlay District

2. Resolution of the City Council accepting the Planning Office determination that the project is exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, with the Environmental Checklist as Exhibit A and Proposed Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance as Exhibit B
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 10, Packet Page 342

Page 1 of 28 ends

ORDINANCE NO. __ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE

TO AUTHORIZE AND REGULATE A LIMITED NUMBER AND TYPE

OF CANNABIS BUSINESSES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, this article is adopted pursuant to the authority granted to the city by Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution, California Government Code sections 50022.1- 50022.8 and 50022.10, Title 4, Division 19 of the California Code of Regulations, and the provisions of the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”); WHEREAS, all forms of cannabis businesses are prohibited in the city, except for cannabis testing laboratories, which were first authorized at a public hearing held on January 21, 2020, where the City Council interpreted the City Code as allowing that use in the I-R Industrial, Administration, and Research District. The city’s prohibition on cannabis businesses was upheld by the Sixth District Court of Appeals in City of Monterey v. Jhonrico Carrnshimba et al., (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1068. This ordinance authorizes certain types of cannabis businesses to operate in the city;
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2020, cannabis policy was discussed at a City Council Study Session;
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, staff proposed a plan and timeline for authorizing cannabis businesses in the city;
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3634 to formalize its January 21, 2020 interpretation that cannabis testing laboratories are permitted in the I-R zone with a use permit;
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the City Council directed staff to develop regulations allowing no more than three cannabis retail permits, one each in Downtown, Lighthouse, and Cannery Row;
WHEREAS, community outreach meetings were held on January 26, 2021 and January 28, 2021 to discuss cannabis policy. Online and postcard surveys were conducted in January - February 2021 to receive public input on cannabis policy and additional City Council discussions were held on February 24, 2021, April 13, 2021, May 4, 2021, and August 17, 2021; WHEREAS, on July 25, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution 22-097, placing a Cannabis Business License Tax on the ballot for the November 2022 election; WHEREAS, Measure J, the city’s Cannabis Business License Tax, passed on November 8, 2022, with more than 65% of the voters voting in the election approving the measure;
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 11, Packet Page 343

Page 2 of 28 ends

WHEREAS, the city intends to restrict access to retail storefront facilities, whether adult use, or medical, or both, to ages 21 and older;
WHEREAS, the city intends to authorize deliveries of medicinal cannabis to individuals 18 years and older to facilitate access to medicinal cannabis consistent with the Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act commencing with Business & Professions Code section 26320 effective in January 2024;
WHEREAS, the city intends to authorize one non-storefront retailer requiring delivery of medicinal cannabis to be consistent with the Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act commencing with Business & Professions Code section 26320 effective in January 2024; WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023 the City Council considered the project description and on June 6, 2023, the City Council approved it as modified by including an additional storefront retailer on N. Fremont and up to two temporary cannabis events to guide environmental review; WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission considered and recommended the amendments to the zoning code set forth in draft ordinance Sections 12 through 15; below;
WHEREAS, based on the exemption review, accepted by the City Council by resolution on November 7, 2023 and incorporated by reference herein, the City’s General Plan EIR has adequately addressed the following issues, and no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3: aesthetics; agricultural resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils (fault rupture, seismic and geologic hazards, erosion, soils,); hazards/hazardous materials (use/disposal of hazardous materials, create hazard, exposure to hazardous materials, airport safety, emergency response); hydrology-water quality (water quality, groundwater, drainage, flood hazards); land use; mineral resources; noise (noise increases, vibration); population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation (conflicts with program or policy, hazardous design, emergency access); and utilities (water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal); and cumulative impacts.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: The foregoing recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 19, Licenses, Fees and Charges is hereby renamed as follows:

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 12, Packet Page 344

Page 3 of 28 ends

Chapter 19. Business Licenses, Fees, and Charges
SECTION 4: Chapter 7, Reserved, is hereby renamed as follows:

Chapter 7. Health, Safety, and Welfare Business Regulations SECTION 5: Monterey City Code, Chapter 19, Article 3, Sections 19-90 through 19-100 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 7, Article 1, Health Permits, Section 7-

1.00 through 7-1.10.

SECTION 6: Monterey City Code, Chapter 19, Article 5, Sections 19-105 through 19-121 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 7, Article 2, Tobacco Retail License, Section 7-2.00 through 7-2.16.

SECTION 7: Monterey City Code, Chapter 22, Article 1, Sections 22-31 through 22-

31.16 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 7, Article 3, Massage Establishments and Massage Therapists, Section 7-3.00 through 7-3.16.

SECTION 8: Monterey City Code, Chapter 22, Article 4, Section 22-39, Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Delivery, and Cultivation, and Marijuana Dispensaries and Marijuana Sales, is hereby repealed in its entirety.

SECTION 9: Monterey City Code, Chapter 22, Article 1, Section 22-32 is hereby renumbered and recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 7, Article 5, Second Hand Dealers, Section 7-5.00.

SECTION 10: Monterey City Code, Chapter 22, Article 1, Section 22-34 is hereby renumbered and recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 7, Article 6, Regulation of Escort Services, Section 7.6.00.

SECTION 11: Chapter 7, Article 7 is added to read as follows:

ARTICLE 7. CANNABIS BUSINESS REGULATIONS
Sec. 7-7.00. Title.

This article shall be known as the Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance.

Sec. 7-7.01. Purpose and Intent.

It is the purpose and intent of this article to: regulate commercial cannabis activity in the city, whether the cannabis is for medicinal or adult-use; to limit youth access and exposure to cannabis and cannabis products; allow cannabis businesses while imposing sensible regulations on commercial activities to protect the city’s residents, neighborhoods, and businesses from disproportionately negative impacts; create jobs and tax revenue for the city; and to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.

The provisions of this article are not intended to and shall not regulate the cultivation or possession of cannabis for personal use in full compliance with all applicable state laws at a person’s primary residence located in a zoning district that allows for residential uses.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 13, Packet Page 345

Page 4 of 28 ends

Sec. 7-7.02. Definitions.

For purposes of this article, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this section unless the context makes apparent another meaning was intended. Any reference to state statutes includes any regulations promulgated thereunder and is deemed to include any successor or amended version of the referenced statute or regulatory provision.

A. “Applicant” means a person, or any officer, director, partner, or other duly authorized representative of an entity applying for a cannabis business permit.

B. “Cannabis” means all or parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, or any other strain or varietal of the genus Cannabis that may exist or hereafter be discovered or developed that has psychoactive or medicinal properties, whether growing or not, including the seeds of such plants. “Cannabis” also means cannabis as defined by Business and Professions Code section 26001(f), Health and Safety Code section 11018, and by other state law.

C. “Cannabis business” means the activity of any natural or legal person, business, or collective in the City relating to cannabis, including but not limited to transportation, distribution, manufacture, compounding, conversion, processing, preparation, testing, storage, packaging, event organizing, delivery and sales (including both wholesale and retail sales) of cannabis, cannabis products, or cannabis accessories, whether or not carried on for gain or profit, whether for medical or adult use, and whether or not such business is licensed by the State. A cannabis business does not include any business the only relationship of which to cannabis or cannabis products is the production or sale of cannabis accessories. A cannabis business does not include cannabis cultivation.

D. “Cannabis business permit” means a regulatory license issued by the city to a cannabis business.

E. “Cannabis product” means any product containing cannabis or its derivatives, including, but not limited to, flowers, buds, oils, tinctures, concentrates, extractions, edibles, and products described in Health & Safety Code section 11018.1.

F. “City Manager” shall mean the City of Monterey City Manager or their designee.

G. “Competitive application” means the screening and selection process used when the number of retail cannabis business applications exceed the maximum number of retail cannabis business permits authorized.

H. “Delivery” means the transfer for any form of compensation of cannabis or cannabis products to a customer or caregiver at a location that is not a dispensary.

I. “Dispensing” means any activity involving the retail sale of cannabis or cannabis products from a retailer.

J. “Distributor’’ means a person engaged in procuring cannabis and/or cannabis products for sale to a dispensary, to a business engaged in delivery, or at another point of retail sale. “Distribution” means engaging in that conduct and a “distribution facility” is any real estate, whether or not improved, used in such conduct.

K. “Employee” means persons who are participating, whether directly or indirectly, in the Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 14, Packet Page 346

Page 5 of 28 ends

cannabis business regulated under this article.

L. “Event organizer” means a person or commercial cannabis business who engages in the organizing and operating of a temporary cannabis event.

M. “Limited-access area” means an area in which cannabis is stored or held and is only accessible to a licensee and authorized personnel.

N. “Manager” means any person(s) designated by the commercial cannabis business to act as the representative or agent of the commercial cannabis business in managing day-to-day operations with corresponding liabilities and responsibility and/or the person in apparent charge of the premises where the commercial cannabis business is located. Evidence of management includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the individual has the power to direct, supervise, hire, and dismiss employees, control hours of operations, provide strategic direction, create policy rules, and purchase supplies.

O. “Medicinal cannabis” or “Medicinal cannabis product” have the same meaning as Business and Professions Code section 26001(al)(1).

P. “Owner” means any of the following, or a group or combination of any of the following, acting as a unit: a person with an aggregate ownership interest of 5 percent or more in the cannabis business applying for a permit under this article, whether a partner, shareholder, principal, member, or the like, unless the interest is solely a security, lien or encumbrance. For purposes of this section, “aggregate” means the total ownership interest held by a single person through any combination of individually held ownership interests in a cannabis business and ownership interests in an entity that has an ownership interest in the same cannabis business.

For example, a person who owns 2.5 percent of the stock in a cannabis business as an individual shareholder and 100 percent of the stock in an entity that owns 2.5 percent of the stock in the same cannabis business has a 5 percent aggregate ownership interest in the cannabis business.

Q. “Permittee” means a person or entity that has received a cannabis business permit and/or a temporary cannabis event permit from the city.

R. “Premises” has the same meaning as in Business and
Professions Code section 26001(at).

S. “Retailer” has the same meaning as in Business and Professions Code section 26001(ax).

T. “State license” means a license issued by the State of California Department of Cannabis Control (“DCC”), or other authorized state agency, under the MAUCRSA and any subsequent related State of California legislation, to engage in cannabis activity.

U. “Temporary cannabis event” means an event of limited duration, and located in a specific area, which allows the on-site sale and/or consumption of cannabis at the event, in compliance with Business and Professions Code section 26200(e) and this article.

V. “Temporary cannabis event permit” means a permit issued by the city to a DCC Type 14 license holder authorizing a temporary cannabis event at the Monterey County Fairgrounds.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 15, Packet Page 347

Page 6 of 28 ends

Sec. 7-7.03. Cannabis Businesses Prohibited Unless Specifically Authorized.

A. Except as specifically authorized by this article, or expressly made exempt from city regulation by state law, cannabis businesses are prohibited everywhere in the city.

B. No person shall engage in, conduct, or operate a cannabis business, or cause, allow, permit, or maintain a cannabis business on any real property within the city except as specifically authorized by this article and Chapter 38, Article 16D.

Sec. 7-7.04. Compliance with State and Local Laws.

Nothing in this article shall be construed as authorizing any actions that violate state law or local law with respect to engaging in, or in the operation of, a cannabis business. It shall be the responsibility of the permittees, owners, employees, and managers of a cannabis business to ensure that a cannabis business is, always, operating in a manner compliant with all applicable state and local laws, including any subsequently enacted state and local laws, or regulatory, licensing, certification standards or requirements, and any specific additional operating procedures or requirements.

Sec. 7-7.05 Cannabis Business Permit Required.

A. It shall be unlawful to engage in any cannabis business within the city unless the person has:

1. A valid cannabis business permit issued by the city pursuant to this article. a. Exception. Cannabis testing laboratories do not need a cannabis business permit. Rather, cannabis testing laboratories are required to have a use permit pursuant to City Code Chapter 38, Article 8, Section 38-99 et seq. It is unlawful for a Cannabis Testing Laboratory to operate without a use permit. 2 A valid state license issued by the DCC;

3. A valid cannabis business license tax registration certificate issued by the city pursuant to City Code, Chapter 19, Article 6;

4. A city zoning clearance for retail cannabis businesses pursuant to City Code, Chapter 38, Article 16D;

5. A temporary cannabis event permit issued by the city for a temporary cannabis event;

6. Paid in full all required fees and charges which shall be established by resolution of the City Council; and

7. Obtained any other applicable approvals, such as a city building permit.

B. It shall be unlawful to rent, lease, license, or otherwise permit any cannabis business at any location, structure, or vehicle in the city by a person that:

1. Does not have a valid cannabis business permit.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 16, Packet Page 348

Page 7 of 28 ends

2. Does not have a temporary cannabis event permit issued by the city for a cannabis event.

3. Does not have a valid use permit for operation of a cannabis testing laboratory.

4. Does not have a valid state license issued by the DCC; or

5. Is not in compliance with all applicate State and local laws and regulations pertaining to the cannabis activity.

Sec. 7-7.06 DCC License Types and Number Authorized.

A. The following DCC cannabis license types are authorized to operate in the city:

1. Storefront Retailer: Type 10A (adult-use) and/or Type 10M (medicinal).

2. Non-storefront Retailer: Type 9M (medicinal cannabis delivery required) or Type 9M and Type 9A.

3. Testing Laboratory: Type 8.

4. Distributor: Type 11 (authorized use is limited to distribution facility located outside of the city and distributing into the city).

5. Cannabis Event Organizer: Type 14 and Temporary Cannabis Events.

B. Cannabis license types not identified in Section 7-7.06(A) are prohibited in the city.

C. Number of Cannabis Businesses and Temporary Events Authorized.

1. Type 10 retail permits (adult use, medicinal, or both) are authorized to operate at no more than four locations in the city.

2. One Type 9 non-storefront retail permit is authorized to operate in the city and shall be required to deliver medicinal cannabis.

3. There is no limit on the number of Type 8 cannabis testing laboratory businesses allowed in the city.

4. There is no limit on the number of distributors (Type 11) with distribution facilities located outside of the city that distribute into the city.

5. There is no limit on the number of delivery (Type 10 or Type 9) businesses with retail stores located outside of the city that deliver into the city.

6. There is no limit on the number of cannabis event organizer (Type 14) businesses allowed in the city.

7. No more than two temporary cannabis event permits may be issued by the city per calendar year.

D. Each year following the city’s initial award of cannabis permits, if any, or at any Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 17, Packet Page 349

Page 8 of 28 ends

time thereafter in the City Council’s discretion, the City Council may eliminate, increase, or decrease the number of permits which are authorized for issuance by amending this ordinance.

E. No person may have an ownership interest in more than one commercial cannabis business in the same DCC license category within the city.

Sec. 7-7.07. Location Limitations.

A. Cannabis retail businesses shall only locate in those zoning districts set forth in City Code Chapter 38, Article 16D (Zoning, Part III – Overlay District Regulations) and pursuant to the development standards set forth therein.

B. Cannabis testing laboratory businesses shall only locate in I-R- Industrial, Administration, and Research District zones.

C. A zone clearance shall be obtained for retail businesses before the city will issue a cannabis permit.

D. Retail cannabis zone clearance applications shall be accepted and reviewed by the Community Development Department during a predesignated period of time after the City Council’s selection of approved retail cannabis permittees. If more than one application for a zone clearance is received for the same zone, the Community Development Department will conduct a lottery drawing that is open to public view to select the permittee for that zone. This process is to ensure that all four zones have one storefront retail cannabis business.

E. Temporary cannabis events are only authorized to be held at the Monterey County Fairgrounds, located at 2000 Fairgrounds Road, Monterey.

Sec. 7-7.08. City Manager Authority.

The City Manager shall have the authority to adopt rules, regulations, and forms governing the implementation of this article. Cannabis businesses shall be required to comply with any rules, regulations, or standards adopted by the City Manager.

Sec 7-7.09. Retail Permit Application.

A. Every owner of a proposed retail cannabis business shall complete an application furnished by the City Manager’s Office. The person(s) authorized to sign on behalf of and legally bind the cannabis business shall print their name and sign the application under penalty of perjury. All applications shall be filled out completely and include the following:

1. Payment of fees.

2. Business plan. Describe the business operation plans and philosophy. Describe the quality of cannabis strains and derivative product offerings.

3. The address of the property on which the proposed business shall be located.

Applications may be accepted without having secured a physical business location; however; a physical location shall be required prior to the issuance of a zone clearance or a cannabis business permit by the city.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 18, Packet Page 350

Page 9 of 28 ends

4. The name, address, and contact information for the business owners(s) and the percentage of ownership interest held in the applicant entity. If the owner is a corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other type of entity, legal documents outlining the business structure shall be provided, along with the name, address, and phone number for each officer. The following documents, if applicable to the business structure, shall be provided: Articles of Incorporation, Articles of Organization, Certificate of Limited Partnership, Statement of Partnership Authority, and/or Fictitious Name Statements. All entities and individuals with a financial interest in the entity shall be disclosed to the city and may be considered owners of the cannabis business.

Ownership of any cannabis business operating in the city is a matter of public record.

5. Security plan. Provide a detailed security plan, which includes measures to be used to prevent unauthorized access, protect the physical safety of employees and surrounding properties, and protect against theft/loss of cannabis, cannabis products, and all other related materials and equipment. Identify surveillance equipment and locations, physical barriers, alarm systems, and storage of samples and records.

6. Transportation plan. Each cannabis business shall have a storage and transportation plan and describes in detail the procedures for safely and securely storing and transporting all cannabis, cannabis products, any hazardous materials that may be used by the business, and any currency.

7. Experience. Previous experience in a cannabis business that was subject to state cannabis regulation, or experience in a similarly state-regulated activity (by way of example and not limitation, alcohol sales).

8. Employee training, wages, and benefits, and compliance with local, state, and federal employee non-discrimination policies.

9. Ability to conform with the city’s general plan, any applicable specific plans, and design standards.

10. Steps the cannabis business will take to ensure the cannabis it receives is sourced from cultivators that provide safe working conditions and pay wages to laborers for work performed.

11. Steps the cannabis business will take to reduce the carbon footprint of cannabis by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

12. Community engagement including past, present, or planned activities that demonstrate how the cannabis business plans to integrate into the community, and involvement in local non-profits/charitable/volunteer organizations.

13. Description of accounting software system to provide point of sale data and audit trails of both product and cash.

14. Demonstrate how compliance with the state’s track and trace system for cannabis and cannabis products will be achieved.

15. Additional information that demonstrates a connection to the city, ability to serve the city, familiarity with the city, and innovative business models consistent with the city’s community.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 19, Packet Page 351

Page 10 of 28 ends

16. An executed release of liability and hold harmless in the form set forth in the city’s application form.

B. All information submitted by applicants shall be true, correct, whole, and free of any material misrepresentation or omission.

C. If any items required by the application are not met or provided, the City Manager may notify the applicant of the deficiency in writing, after which the applicant will have 10 business days from the date of the notice to correct the deficiency.

D. The city reserves the right to reject any or all applications for a cannabis permit. Persons submitting applications assume the risk that all or any part of this code authorizing cannabis businesses may be repealed at any time prior to license issuance.

E. Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 11105(b)(11) and 13300(b)(11), which authorizes city authorities to access state and local summary criminal history information for cannabis employment, licensing, or certification purposes and authorizes access to federal level criminal history information by transmitting fingerprint images and related information to the Department of Justice to be transmitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, every person listed as an owner or employee must submit fingerprints and other information deemed necessary by the Chief of Police or their designee for a background check by the City of Monterey Police Department and/or its agents or employees.

F. Prior to cannabis business permit issuance, the city may modify, postpone, or cancel any request for applications, at any time without liability, obligation, or commitment to any party, firm, or organization, to the extent permitted under California law. Persons submitting applications assume the risk that all or any part of the cannabis business permit program, or any category of cannabis business potentially authorized under this article, may be cancelled at any time prior to permit issuance. The city further reserves the right to request and obtain additional information from any candidate applying.

Sec. 7-7.10. Retail Application Period
Storefront and Non-Storefront Retail Sales. There shall be an initial 45-day storefront and nonstorefront retail application screening period to be determined by the City Manager. Subsequent screening application periods shall commence upon certification by the City Manager that additional cannabis permits are available and shall close 45 days after such certification. Should the number of applications submitted during the initial 45-day permit screening period exceed the maximum number of storefront and/or non-storefront retail cannabis business permits authorized, the competitive procedure set forth in Section 7-7.11 shall be utilized to award those permits. Otherwise, the applications are processed under Section 7-7.12.

Sec. 7-7.11. Retail Competitive Application Review, Selection, and Waitlist A. Applications that meet the criteria for permit approval set forth in Section 7-7.12 shall be reviewed and scored by a qualified consulting firm. The consulting firm will rank all applications and will forward up to eight of the top ranked storefront cannabis retail applications, and up to three of the top ranked non-storefront retail applications (with mandatory medicinal cannabis delivery) to the Selection Committee for consideration. The Selection Committee shall be an ad hoc committee comprised of the Mayor and Vice Mayor and staffed by the City Manager or Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 20, Packet Page 352

Page 11 of 28 ends

designee. The Selection Committee will select the final four storefront cannabis retailers and one non-storefront retailer to recommend to the City Council for approval. The Selection Committee shall score each application based on the general criteria listed under subsection (C), below. The specific criteria and weighting (points per criteria) will be determined prior to the commencement of the initial screening application period and posted publicly. Each application will be independently scored by the consulting firm and the Selection Committee members utilizing a point system scale. There shall be no right to appeal the ranking and/or scoring of applications.

B. General Ranking Criteria. The objective review criteria shall include at a minimum the following elements and the City Manager may establish additional elements in their discretion to be included in the objective review criteria to select the most qualified applicants:

1. Community engagement;

2. Local business partnerships; and

3. Sustainable business practices that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The City Manager may establish additional elements in their discretion to be included in the objective review criteria to select qualified applicants.

C. The scores awarded by the application evaluation committee shall be totaled and averaged for each applicant. The applicants shall then be ranked from highest to lowest based on their scores.

D. The top four applicants for storefront retail, and top applicant for non-storefront retail, based on points, or applicants applying for vacated licenses, are to be approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 7-7.12.

Sec. 7-7.12. Retail and Cannabis Business Permit Issuance.

A. The City Council, after receiving the application and the required information, shall grant the retail or testing laboratory permit if it finds all the following:

1. Granting the permit would not exceed the number of cannabis businesses authorized under Section 7-7.06(C).

2. The applicant has not knowingly made a material misrepresentation or omission in the application.

3. The applicant has not had a cannabis business permit denied or revoked by the state, county, city, city and county, or any other state within five years of the date of the application.

4. The cannabis business, as proposed by the applicant, would comply with all applicable provisions of state law and this code, including but not limited to this article, and all health, zoning, fire, and safety requirements.

5. No grounds for denial exist under Section 7-7.13.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 21, Packet Page 353

Page 12 of 28 ends

B. Applicants that are approved by the City Council and have obtained a zone clearance from the city, may be issued a cannabis permit. Any permit awarded under this section may include conditions of approval requiring the cannabis business permittee to comply with the objective review criteria set forth in its application.

C. If any of the selected storefront or non-storefront retail applicants fail to exercise a cannabis business permit under the time specified in Section 7-7.12(H), all rights to the permit shall terminate and be forfeited.

D. If the City Council authorizes additional cannabis businesses, or if any of the top four ranked applicants have not exercised a storefront or non-storefront retail commercial cannabis permit within 12 months after selection, or within 18 months if the City Manager granted an extension under Section 7-7.12(H), the City Manager shall invite the next ranked applicant from the results of the City’s initial screening application process in the applicable license category to apply for City Council approval of a cannabis permit; however, the waitlist shall expire on January 1, 2026. Once the waitlist applicant is notified of the right to apply for a vacant permit, the applicant shall secure a permit within the time frame specified in Section 7-7.12(H). If the waitlist applicant fails to exercise a cannabis business permit within that time, they are removed from the waitlist.

E. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the city shall not assume any liability whatsoever with respect to having issued a cannabis business permit pursuant to this article or otherwise approving the operation of any cannabis business. As a condition to the approval of any cannabis business permit, the applicant shall be required to meet all the following conditions prior to receiving the cannabis business permit:

1. Execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, agreeing to indemnify, defend (at applicant’s sole cost and expense), and hold the City of Monterey, and its officers, officials, employees, representatives, and agents, harmless, from any and all claims, losses, damages, injuries, liabilities or losses which arise out of, or which are in any way related to, the city ’s issuance of the cannabis business permit, the city’s decision to approve the operation of the cannabis business or activity, the process used by the city in making its decision, or the alleged violation of any federal, state or local laws by the cannabis business or any of its officers, employees or agents. The permittee will sign an acknowledgement that the permit is expressly limited in term without a right to renewal.

2. Maintain insurance at coverage limits determined necessary and appropriate from time to time by the City’s Risk Manager or designee.

3. Reimburse the city for all costs and expenses, including but not limited to legal fees and court costs, which the city may be required to pay because of any legal challenge related to the city’s approval of the applicant’s cannabis business permit or related to the city’s approval of a cannabis activity. The city, at its sole discretion, may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of any of the obligations imposed hereunder.

F. Duration.

1. A cannabis business permit is valid for one year from the date of issuance and renewal of the permit is not guaranteed.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 22, Packet Page 354

Page 13 of 28 ends

2. A cannabis business permit must be renewed by the permittee annually. A permittee may apply for a renewal of a permit 60 calendar days prior to the expiration of the permit.

3. Permit renewals shall be granted if the information upon which the original application was granted remains unchanged, no violations of this article have been committed, the renewal fee is paid, and the City Council has not reduced the number or eliminated cannabis businesses as an authorized use. In all other situations, the City Manager shall approve or deny the application within 60 calendar days. A cannabis business may continue to operate under the terms of the previous permit if a timely renewal application has been received and is awaiting a determination by the City Manager.

4. If a renewal cannabis business permit application is not timely filed, or the required fees are not paid prior to the expiration date of the permit, the permit shall be deemed expired and no privilege to operate a cannabis business shall exist after the expiration date.

5. The City Manager is authorized to impose additional conditions to a renewal license to ensure compliance with state or local laws or to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare.

6. If a renewal application is denied, one year from the date of the denial, a person may file a new application at the next permit application screening period set forth in Section 7-7.10.

G. Cannabis permits issued under this article are valid only as to the approved permittee at the specified approved location, and is nontransferable to other persons, entities, projects, or locations. The assignment of or the attempt to assign any permit issued pursuant to this article is unlawful and any such assignment or attempt to assign a permit shall render the permit null and void. A cannabis business shall be deemed to have transferred to a new owner within the meaning of this section if person(s) or entities with controlling interest at the time the cannabis business permit was first issued ceases at any time to possess or control ownership interest and/or an ownership interest of less than 51%.

H. A cannabis business permit shall be exercised within 12 months of issuance. Upon a showing of significant and diligent progress towards exercising the cannabis business permit, the City Manager may provide one six-month extension of time. A cannabis business permit shall be considered exercised when any of the following occur:

1. A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.

2. The permitted use has commenced on the site.

3. A city Building Permit is secured, and construction lawfully commenced.

I. Prior to commencing operations, a cannabis business permittee shall be subject to a mandatory building inspection.

J. The permittee may apply to amend the permit on a form provided by the City Manager.

The application shall not be granted unless the city determines that the terms of the amended permit comply with all requirements of this article and all other state and local laws. An Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 23, Packet Page 355

Page 14 of 28 ends

amended permit shall retain its original expiration date. A cannabis business may continue to operate under the terms of the previous permit while an application for an amended permit is awaiting a determination.

K. No permittee may operate a commercial cannabis business under any name other than the name specified in the permit and business license certification without first obtaining approval to amend the permit pursuant to Section 9-7.12(J).

Sec. 7-7.13. Retail Cannabis Business Permit Denial.

An application for a retail cannabis business permit shall be denied by the City Manager if any of the following findings are made:

A. It contains false or misleading information.

B. It does not meet the requirements of the city code or other applicable laws.

C. It was received after the submission deadline.

D. It was not fully responsive to the request for a permit application.

E. Applicant failed to exercise a cannabis business permit within the time frame established in Section 7-7.12(H).

F. The applicant, or any existing or prospective manager, is not at least 21 years of age.

G. The applicant, or any existing or prospective manager, has had a similar type of license previously revoked or denied within five years immediately preceding the permit application in the City or other jurisdiction in California.

H. The applicant, or any existing or prospective manager, was notified within five years immediately preceding the permit application by the state, county, city, or city and county, that it was conducting cannabis activity in violation of state or local laws and failed to cure the violation in a timely manner.

I. The applicant, or any existing or prospective manager, is delinquent in payment of federal, state, or local taxes and/or fees.

J. Pursuant to California Penal sections 11105(b)(11) and 13300(b)(11), which requires exclusion from cannabis employment, licensing or certification based on specific criminal conduct on the part of the subject of the record, no person shall be issued a permit to operate a cannabis business or be allowed to work in a cannabis business unless they have first cleared the background check, as determined by the Chief of Police or their designee(s).

Evidence of a conviction of any of the offenses enumerated in Business and Professions Code section 26057(b)(4), absent the issuance of a Certificate of Rehabilitation pursuant to Penal Code section 4852.05, shall be grounds for immediate disqualification of the applicant.

K. If an applicant is denied a license due to a disqualifying factor including, but not limited to, failing a background check or not complying with any state, or local jurisdictions regulatory requirements in which legal or administrative action has been taken, a new application may not be filed by the applicant for one (1) year from the Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 24, Packet Page 356

Page 15 of 28 ends

date of the denial. This section shall not apply to an approved applicant not awarded a license resulting from the city not selecting them in an application process with a finite number of available licenses.

Sec. 7-7.14. Modification, Suspension, or Revocation of Cannabis Business Permits.

A. Any cannabis business permit issued pursuant to this Article may be modified, suspended, or revoked when the City Manager finds that any of the following have occurred on even a single occasion:

1. For any violation of this article, any state or local laws, rules, and/or any standards, policies, procedures, or regulations adopted pursuant to this article relating to the cannabis businesses.

2. Where the permittee, cannabis business, and/or any owner, manager, or employee has violated the terms and provisions of the cannabis business permit.

3. The permittee or any person employed or retained by the commercial cannabis business has been convicted of any of the offenses enumerated in Business and Professions Code section 26057(b)(4), absent a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

4. The permittee has been subject to a temporary or permanent injunction against the conducting or maintaining of a nuisance pursuant to the City Code or Section 11225 through 11235 of the California Penal Code, or any similar provision of law.

5. A permit has been granted on false or fraudulent evidence, testimony, or application.

6. The permittee or any employee of the cannabis business has engaged in fraud or misrepresentation or has knowingly made a misstatement of material fact while working in or for the cannabis business.

7. The permittee has continued to operate the cannabis business after the permit has expired or been suspended.

8. When the City Manager determines there to be an imminent threat to public health, safety or welfare, the City Manager may take immediate action to temporarily suspend a Cannabis Business License issued by the city.

9. When the preservation of the public health, safety, or welfare necessitate revocation of the permit.

10. The failure of a cannabis retail or testing laboratory cannabis business to operate for 120 continuous days for any reason. If the cannabis business has not been in regular and continuous operation in the preceding 120 days at the permitted location, the cannabis business permit shall be deemed to be not in good standing, abandoned, and null and void.

B. A decision of the city to modify, suspend, or revoke a cannabis business permit is appealable as set forth in Section 7-7.17.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 25, Packet Page 357

Page 16 of 28 ends

Sec. 7-7.15. Effect of State License Suspension, Revocation or Expiration.

A. Suspension, revocation, or expiration of a DCC license shall immediately suspend the ability of that cannabis business to operate within the city and shall serve to suspend the cannabis business permit. Should the DCC license remain suspended or expired for 120 days or longer, the cannabis permit shall expire and be of no further force and effect. Should the DCC revoke or terminate the license of a cannabis business for cause, such revocation or termination shall also serve to revoke or terminate the city issued cannabis business permit and the ability of the permittee, including any owner or manager thereof, to operate any cannabis business within the city for a period of five years from the date of such revocation or termination. If the DCC reinstates or reissues the license within 120 days of the DCC suspension or expiration, the cannabis business may seek reinstatement of its city permit if the business can demonstrate that the grounds for suspension or revocation of the license by the DCC no longer exist or that the underlying deficiency has otherwise been cured. Any cannabis business permittee shall inform the City Manager of any suspension or revocation of a state license within two days.

B. A permittee shall have no right to appeal the suspension or revocation of a cannabis business permit that is based on the status of their state license, provided, however, an owner or manager thereof may appeal the term of their prohibition from operating another cannabis business in the city. Such appeal shall be based on the hearing procedures set forth in Section 7-7.17. The burden shall always be on the appellant to show good cause why the term of the prohibition should be less than five years.

Sec. 7-7.16. Effect of DCC Revocation or Nonrenewal on Property Owner.

If a retail or testing laboratory cannabis business permit is revoked or not renewed because of violations, no cannabis business permit may be issued at that location for a period of five years from the date of the revocation or nonrenewal. A property owner may appeal their prohibition from operating another cannabis business in the city at that location. Such appeal shall be based on the hearing procedures set forth in Section 7-7.17. The burden shall at all times be on the appellant to show good cause why the prohibition should be reversed or modified.

Sec. 7-7.17. Notice, hearing, and appeal.

A. Appeals relating to denial of an application, the decision of the city to revoke, suspend or modify a permit, or to deny renewal of an application for a permit; or to add conditions to a permit, or under Sections 7-7.15 or 7-7.16 shall be conducted as prescribed in this section.

There is no right to appeal the ranking and/or screening of applications under Section 7-7.11.

B. Any person who has been denied a cannabis business permit; any person whose application for an amended cannabis business permit has been denied; or any person whose privilege to operate a cannabis business has been modified, suspended, or revoked shall be notified in writing by means of registered mail, certified mail, email, or hand delivery of the City Manager’s decision as well as the person’s right to request a hearing under subsection (D) of this section.

C. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Manager may immediately suspend a cannabis business permit without a prior hearing if they determine that the operation of the cannabis business constitutes an immediate and significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.

In such a case, if requested, the Appeals Hearing Board shall conduct the hearing following the suspension.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 26, Packet Page 358

Page 17 of 28 ends

D. A request for a hearing before the Appeals Hearing Board shall be in writing and shall be made within 10 calendar days from the date of the decision to deny, suspend, revoke, or modify the permit. If no hearing request is made within this time period, the City Manager’s notice of denial, revocation, suspension, or modification shall become final and shall go immediately into full force and effect.

E. Upon receiving a written request for hearing, the Appeals Hearing Board shall set a time and place for the hearing not less than 10 days or more than 60 days thereafter. The applicant or permittee shall be notified of the hearing by means of registered mail, certified mail, email, or hand delivery at least five days before the hearing date.

1. Apart from an immediate suspension under subsection (C), in the event a written notice of appeal is timely filed, the nonrenewal, suspension, or revocation shall not become effective until a final decision has been rendered and issued by the Appeals Hearing Board. Notices of appeal not served in a timely manner or served by nonoperational business shall not serve to allow such business to operate pending appeal.

2. If no appeal is timely filed in the event of a decision of nonrenewal, the cannabis businesses permit shall expire at the conclusion of the term of the permit. If no appeal is timely filed in the event of a decision supporting modification, suspension, or revocation, the decision shall become effective upon the expiration of the period for filing a written notice of appeal.

F. All parties involved shall have the right to offer testimonial, documentary, and tangible evidence bearing on the issues, to be represented by counsel, and to confront and crossexamine witnesses. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply; any relevant evidence may be admitted if it is the sort of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. Except for appeals under Section 7-7.15 and 7-7.16, where the appellant carries the burden of proof, the city shall have the burden of proof of any violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Any hearing under this section may be continued for a reasonable time for the convenience of a party or witness. If the applicant or permittee fails to appear at the hearing, the evidence of the existence of facts which constitute grounds for the denial, suspension, revocation, or restriction of the permit shall be considered conclusively established.

G. Within 30 days of the hearing, the Board shall issue a written decision specifying the reasons for the decision, which shall be delivered by either registered mail, certified mail, email, or hand delivery to the applicant or permittee. The decision of the Board shall be final and shall be subject to judicial review according to the provisions and time limits set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6.

Sec. 7-7.18. Retail Cannabis Business Operational Requirements.

A. General Operating Requirements.

1. Restriction on Sales and Consumption. Cannabis shall not be consumed by any person on the premises of cannabis businesses.

2. No person shall cause or permit the sale, dispensing, or consumption of alcoholic beverages or tobacco on or about the premises of the cannabis business.

3. No persons under the age of 21 years shall be allowed on the premises of a Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 27, Packet Page 359

Page 18 of 28 ends

cannabis business.

4. Inspections. The investigating officials of the city and its authorized agents shall have the right as otherwise provided for by law to inspect a cannabis business during regular business hours, without notice and without a search or inspection warrant, to ascertain whether there is compliance with the provisions of this article and state law.

5. Records.
a. Each owner and operator of a cannabis business shall maintain accurate books and records in an electronic format, detailing all of the revenues and expenses of the business, and all of its assets and liabilities for a period not less than seven (7) years. On no less than an annual basis (at or before the time of the renewal of a cannabis business tax registration certificate issued pursuant Chapter 19, Article 7), or at any time upon reasonable request of the city, each cannabis business shall file a sworn statement detailing the number and amount of sales by the cannabis business during the previous twelve-month period (or shorter period based upon the timing of the request), provided on a per-month basis. The statement shall also include gross sales for each month, and all applicable taxes and/or fees paid or due to be paid. On an annual basis, each owner and operator shall submit to the city a financial audit of the business’s operations conducted by an independent certified public accountant. Each licensee shall be subject to a regulatory compliance review and a gross receipts financial audit, where applicable, as determined by the city. b. Each owner and operator of a cannabis business shall maintain a current register of the names and the contact information (including the name, address, and telephone number) of anyone owning or holding an interest in the cannabis business, and separately of all the officers, managers, employees, agents, and volunteers currently employed or otherwise engaged by the cannabis business.

The register required by this paragraph shall be provided to the City Manager upon request.

6. Security. The cannabis business permittee shall implement sufficient security measures to deter and prevent the unauthorized entrance into areas containing cannabis or cannabis products and to deter and prevent the theft of cannabis or cannabis products at the premises. Except as may otherwise be determined by the City Manager, these security measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, all the following:
a. Sensors installed to detect entry and exit from all secure areas and shall be monitored in real time by a security company licensed by the State of California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. b. Panic buttons with direct notification to the Police Department dispatch and shall be configured to immediately alert dispatch for the Police Department. c. A professionally installed, maintained, and monitored real-time alarm system by a security company licensed by the State of California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. The permittee shall be required to obtain an alarm permit from the Police Department. Upon request, permittee shall make available to the Police Department all information related to the alarm system, Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 28, Packet Page 360

Page 19 of 28 ends

monitoring, and alarm activity.
d. Windows and roof hatches shall be secured from the inside with effective means so as to prevent unauthorized entry and shall be equipped with latches or a similar mechanism that may be released quickly from the inside to allow exit in the event of an emergency.
e. Each cannabis business shall have the capability to remain secure during a power outage and shall ensure that all access doors are not solely controlled by an electronic access panel to ensure that locks are not released during a power outage.
f. Secured Doors. All areas of the business that are not open to the public shall be secured from unauthorized entry by closed and locked doors during public operating hours.
g. Surveillance records shall be maintained for a minimum of one year and shall be made available within 24 hours at the request of the City Manager, Police Chief, or their designee.
h. Each cannabis business shall identify a designated security representative/liaison to the City, who shall be reasonably available to meet with the City Manager regarding any security related measures and/or operational issues.
i. A cannabis business shall immediately notify the Monterey Police Department after discovering any of the following:
i. Significant discrepancies identified during inventory. The level of significance shall be determined by the regulations promulgated by the City Manager.
ii. Diversion, theft, or loss.
iii. The loss or unauthorized alteration of records related to cannabis, customers or employees or agents of the cannabis business. iv. Any other breach of security.

7. Emergency Contact. Each cannabis business shall provide the City Manager with the name and telephone number (both land line and mobile) of an on-site manager or owner to whom emergency notice can be provided at any hour of the day or night.

8. Signs and Notices.
a. Business identification signage for a cannabis business shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 31 Signs, including, but not limited to, seeking the issuance of a City sign permit.
b. Each entrance to a cannabis business shall visibly post a sign that persons under the age of 21 years are not permitted to enter the premises.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 29, Packet Page 361

Page 20 of 28 ends

c. Each entrance to a cannabis business shall visibly post a sign, consistent with City Code section 22-29(d), that smoking within 20 feet of the areas adjacent to the cannabis business is prohibited.
d. The cannabis business permit issued by the city pursuant to this article and the city-issued cannabis business license certificate shall be posted inside the cannabis business in a conspicuous and public location.

9. Odor control. All cannabis business shall provide an air treatment system that ensures off-site odors shall not result from its operations. This requirement at a minimum means that the facility shall be designed to provide sufficient odor absorbing ventilation and exhaust systems so that any odor generated inside the location is not detected on adjacent properties or public rights-of-way, or within any other unit located within the same building as the cannabis business if the cannabis business occupies only a portion of a building.

10. Background check. Every owner, manager, supervisor, or employee of the cannabis business must submit fingerprints and other information necessary deemed by the City Manager for a background check by the Police Department and/or its agents and employees to verify that person’s criminal history pursuant to the requirements of this article.

11. No cannabis business shall provide or cause to be provided any free samples of cannabis goods to any person within the city.

12. Each cannabis operator shall establish minimum training standards for all employees. The City Manager shall have the discretion to require other training for the business operations should the City identify deficiencies or non-compliance issues with City or state requirements.

13. Each cannabis business shall provide the name, telephone number, and email address of a community relations contact to whom notice of problems associated with the cannabis business can be provided. Each cannabis business shall also provide the above information to all businesses and residences located within three hundred (300) feet of the cannabis business within 30 days of commencing operations.

14. Each cannabis business shall have an on-site manager present during business hours.

B. Additional Operating Requirements for Storefront Retail Sales. In addition to requirements set forth in subsection (A) (General Operating Requirements), every storefront retail sales cannabis business shall comply with the following:

1. A storefront retailer shall not conduct sales exclusively by delivery.

2. A storefront retailer shall not provide cannabis to an individual in excess of the amount that is consistent with personal possession and use limits allowed by the state.

3. Ancillary manufacturing and cultivation at the premises are not permitted.

4. Retailers may have only that quantity of cannabis and cannabis products to meet the daily demand readily available for sale on-site in the retail sales area of the retailer.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 30, Packet Page 362

Page 21 of 28 ends

Additional product may be stored in a secured, locked area to which customers, vendors, and visitors shall not have access.

5. All restroom facilities shall remain locked and under the control of management.

6. Retailers shall only serve customers who are within the permitted premises, or at a delivery address that meets the requirements of this division.

7. The sale and delivery of cannabis goods shall not occur through a pass-through window or a slide-out tray to the exterior of the premises.

8. Retailers shall not operate as or with a drive-in or drive-through at which cannabis goods are sold to persons within or about a motor vehicle.

9. No cannabis goods shall be sold and/or delivered by any means or method to any person within a motor vehicle.

10. Retailers shall record point-of-sale areas and areas where cannabis goods are displayed for sale on the video surveillance system. At each point-of-sale location, camera placement must allow for the recording of the facial features of any person purchasing or selling cannabis goods, or any person in the retail area, with sufficient clarity to determine identity.

11. Limited Access Areas. A retailer shall establish limited-access areas and permit only authorized individuals to enter the limited-access areas. Authorized individuals include individuals employed by the retailer as well as any outside vendors, contractors, or other individuals conducting business that requires access to the limited access area.

A retailer shall maintain a log of all individuals who are not employees who are granted access to the limited access area. These logs shall be made available to the City Manager, Chief of Police, or their designees upon request.

12. Storefront hours that are open to the public shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m. seven days a week.

13. Deliveries of Medical Cannabis. Medical cannabis may be delivered to individuals aged 18 and older who possesses a valid government-issued identification card, and either a valid county-issued identification card under Health and Safety Code section 11362.712 or a physician’s recommendation for themselves or for a person for whom that person is a primary caregiver.

C. Additional Operating Requirements for Non-Storefront Retail (Delivery Only) Facilities

1. A non-storefront retailer permittee shall be required to deliver medicinal cannabis.

2. The permitted premises of a non-storefront retailer shall be closed to the public.

3. A non-storefront retailer permittee shall comply with all the requirements applicable to retailer permittees, except for those provisions related to public access to the licensed premises and the retail area.

4. Medical cannabis may be delivered to individuals aged 18 and older who Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 31, Packet Page 363

Page 22 of 28 ends

possesses a valid government-issued identification card, and either a valid countyissued identification card under Health and Safety Code section 11362.712 or a physician’s recommendation for themselves or for a person for whom that person is a primary caregiver.

Sec. 7-7.19. Permit and Operating Requirements for Distributors with Distribution Facilities Located Outside of the City and Distributing Inside the City.

Prior to distributing cannabis inside the city, a cannabis distributor business with a distribution facility located outside of city limits shall complete an application furnished by the City Manager and obtain a cannabis business permit from the city by complying with the following requirements:

A. Register pursuant to Monterey City Code, Chapter 19, Article 6 and obtain a cannabis business license tax registration certificate. A copy of this certificate shall be retained by all drivers.

B. The distributor business shall provide the City Manager with evidence of a valid DCC license and local license/permit for a cannabis business on whose authorization the delivery service is performing the delivery function.

C. Payment of fees.

D. The following sections of this Article apply to cannabis distributor businesses with distribution facilities located outside of the city:

1. Section 7-7.12(E) - indemnity

2. Section 7-7.12(F) – duration

3. Section 7-7.12(G) – permit not transferrable

4. Section 7-7.12(J) – amendments

5. Section 7-7.12(K) – name changes

6. Section 7-7.14 – modification, suspension, or revocation of permit

7. Section 7-7.15 – state permit suspension

8. Section 7-7.17 – notice, hearing, and appeals
Sec. 7-7.20. Permit and Operating Requirements for Retailers with Stores Located Outside of the City and Delivering Inside the City.

Prior to commencing delivery operations inside the city, a cannabis retail business with stores located outside of city limits shall complete an application furnished by the City Manager and obtain a cannabis business permit from the city by complying with the following requirements:

A. Register pursuant to Monterey City Code, Chapter 19, Article 6 and obtain a cannabis business license tax registration certificate. A copy of this certificate shall be retained by all drivers.

B. The retail business operating the delivery service shall provide the City Manager with evidence of a valid DCC license and local license/permit for a cannabis business on whose - authorization the delivery service is performing the delivery function.

C. Payment of fees.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 32, Packet Page 364

Page 23 of 28 ends

D. The following sections of this Article apply to cannabis distributor businesses with distribution facilities located outside of the city:

1. Section 7-7.12(E) - indemnity

2. Section 7-7.12(F) – duration

3. Section 7-7.12(G) – permit not transferrable

4. Section 7-7.12(J) – amendments

5. Section 7-7.12(K) – name changes

6. Section 7-7.14 – modification, suspension, or revocation of permit

7. Section 7-7.15 – state permit suspension

8. Section 7-7.17 – notice, hearing, and appeals
Sec. 7-7-21. Temporary Cannabis Events
A. Any person applying for a temporary cannabis event permit must obtain a DCC cannabis event organizer license, a DCC temporary cannabis event license, and a valid cannabis business license tax registration certificate issued by the city pursuant to Monterey City Code, Chapter 19, Article 6 prior to the event. All licenses and permits required under state and local law shall be obtained prior to the event and shall remain in full force and effect throughout the duration of the event.

B. An application for a temporary cannabis event permit shall be submitted by the Cannabis Event Organizer to the City Manager no less than 45 calendar days before the first day of the temporary cannabis event. The application shall contain the list of DCC licensees participating in the event.

C. Conditions. A temporary cannabis event permit holder and all retailers participating in the temporary event shall comply with all conditions required under state and city licenses and permits, in addition to, and not limited to, the following conditions:

1. Follow all state law requirements authorizing onsite cannabis sales and consumption at temporary events. Consumption must be expressly authorized in the DCC license, or the license if only valid for the sale of cannabis by retailers at the event.

Only retailers can sell cannabis during an event. All event organizers and retailers must have a valid cannabis business license tax registration certificate issued by the city pursuant to Monterey City Code, Chapter 19, Article 6.

2. Only distributors permitted under Section 7-7.19 can transport cannabis to a temporary cannabis event.

3. Retailers must have a specific location from which they make sales. No retailers may sell cannabis goods from a mobile cart or from a non-designated location.

4. If consumption is allowed at the event, it shall occur only in a designated area.

On-site emergency medical care may be required at the discretion of the city.

5. Event organizers shall provide adequate security to ensure the safety of persons and always protect the premises from theft in conformance with the security plan submitted with a permittee’s application. Event organizers shall provide a security guard patrol surrounding the event during all hours of operation as determined by the city.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 33, Packet Page 365

Page 24 of 28 ends

6. City of Monterey Police Officers, City of Monterey Code Enforcement Officers, Monterey County Sheriff’s Deputies, or other agents or employees of the City requesting admission for the purpose of determining compliance with these standards shall be given unrestricted access.

7. The city may require the event organizer and all participants to cease operations without delay if, in the opinion of the city or law enforcement, it is necessary to protect the immediate health and safety of the public. Upon notification from the city that the event is to cease operations, the event organizer shall immediately stop the event and all participants shall be removed from the temporary cannabis event premises within the time frame provided by the city.

8. Upon notification from the city, the event organizer shall immediately expel from the event any person selling cannabis without a license from the DCC and/ or the city.

The event organizer or their representative shall remain with the person being expelled from the premises at all times until they vacate the premises. If the person does not vacate the premises, the city may inform the event organizer that the event must cease operations. Upon notification from the city that the event is to cease operations, the event organizer shall immediately stop the event and all participations shall be removed from the temporary cannabis event premises within the time frame provided by the city.

D. Discretionary Grant or Denial. The City Manager may grant a temporary cannabis event permit in their reasonable discretion, or may deny a temporary cannabis event permit in their reasonable discretion based on one or more of the following findings:

1. The applicant has not sufficiently established that the sale or consumption of cannabis or cannabis products at the event would comply with applicable state and city laws;

2. The applicant has not sufficiently established that the sale or consumption of cannabis or cannabis products at the event would be consistent with public health or public safety;

3. The applicant has not sufficiently established that the sale or consumption of cannabis or cannabis products at the event would not have adverse impacts on nearby neighborhoods or public spaces;

4. The applicant has not taken steps sufficient to reasonably ensure that the only individuals and/or entitles that will provide onsite sales of cannabis goods at the proposed event are those that have been identified on the application as holding a DCC retail permit;

5. The applicant has provided materially false or incomplete information in support of the application;

6. There is insufficient time to process the permit application adequately in advance of the proposed event;
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 34, Packet Page 366

Page 25 of 28 ends

7. If the Monterey Police Department has insufficient staff available to cover other special events (e.g., car week) and patrol or respond to calls for service at a temporary cannabis event at the Monterey County Fairgrounds.

8. The event is on or within ten (10) days of a special event permit issued by the City that is assigned four or more officers per day;

9. When vacancies (including absences due to vacations, injuries, etc.) for sworn positions in the police department are at or above 20%.

10. There is other good cause to deny the permit.

Sec. 7-7.22. Existing Cannabis Operations
Any existing cannabis business that does not hold a cannabis business permit from the city at the time of the effective date of this article or after is not in compliance with the Monterey City Code and shall immediately cease operations.

Sec. 7-7.23 Penalty for violation.

Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and any violation of this article is hereby deemed a public nuisance. Every person who violates any provision of this article may also be subject to administrative citations under Sections 1-9 through 1-9.12 and/or compliance orders under Section 1-10 through 1-

10.20, which are in addition to all other legal remedies, criminal or civil, which may be pursued by the City to address any violations of this code. A compliance order may require the property owner to provide notice.

Sec. 7-6-24. License Holder Responsible for Violations.

The person to whom a license is issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be responsible for all violations of the laws of the State of California or of the regulations and/or the ordinances of the City, whether committed by the licensee or any employee or agent of the licensee, which violations occur in or about the premises of the Cannabis Business whether said violations occur within the license holder’s presence.

Sec. 7-6.25. No Vested Rights
A. No person(s) (including any applicant, owner, and/or permittee) shall have any vested rights to any permit, right, and/or interest under this article, regardless of whether such person(s) sold, distributed, and/or otherwise engaged in acts related to the use of cannabis prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this article.

B. Should the City Council decrease the number of cannabis business permits, the cannabis business permits chosen for nonrenewal will be determined by lottery. Any permittee in good standing that is selected for nonrenewal through the lottery will have a one-year grace period following the scheduled expiration of their existing term, at which time the permit will sunset and be null and void.

SECTION 12: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Article 2, Section 38-6(C) is amended to insert the following base district designator, name, and article above the AP AdministrativeCouncil Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 35, Packet Page 367

Page 26 of 28 ends

Professional Overlay District 12:

Base
District
Designator Base District Name Article
PC-D Planned Community Downtown 11
PC-LH Planned Community Lighthouse 11
PC-NF Planned Community North Fremont 11
SECTION 13: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Article 2, Section 38-6(C) is amended to insert the following base district designator, name, and article below the SC Planning Commercial Overlay District 16:

Base
District +
Designator Base District Name Article
RA Religious Assembly in the Garden Rd. I-R-130 Zoning District Overlay District 16A ES Emergency Shelter Overlay District 16B
MF Multifamily Residential Overlay District 16C
CB Cannabis Business Overlay District 16D
SECTION 14: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Article 3, Section 38-11, is hereby amended to add the following definitions, to be inserted in the list of definitions in alphabetical order. These definitions apply to this Chapter and shall prevail over any inconsistent definitions in the City Code.

Day Care Center: has the same meaning as in Health & Safety Code section 1596.76.

Playground: has the same meaning as in Health & Safety Code section 11353.1(e)(1).

School: has the same meaning as “Educational Institution” as defined in Education Code section 210.3.

Youth center: has the same meaning as Health & Safety Code section 11353.1(e)(2).

SECTION 15: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Article 16D is hereby added to read as follows:

Sec. 38-99.8 CANNABIS BUSINESS OVERLAY DISTRICT
A. Specific Purposes. The Cannabis Business Overlay District is intended to facilitate the regulation, location, and development of cannabis businesses in the city.

B. Applicability and Zoning Map Designator. The Cannabis Business Overlay District shall be shown on the Zoning Map by adding a CB to the base district designator. It may be Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 36, Packet Page 368

Page 27 of 28 ends

combined in any Commercial (C) district to the properties shown in Appendix A to the ordinance codified in this article.

1. There are four storefront retail cannabis businesses allowed, one in each overlay zone as follows:
a. CB1: Lighthouse and Foam Street area, shown on Appendix A, except that no cannabis business shall have a retail frontage on any cross street with Lighthouse Avenue or Foam Street;
b. CB2: the Downtown District, shown on Appendix A, except that no cannabis business shall have a retail frontage on Alvarado Street; c. CB3: Wave Street area, shown on Appendix A, except that no cannabis business shall have a retail frontage on any cross street with Wave Street or allow public access from the Recreation Trail; and
d. CB4: on North Fremont Street, between Airport Road and Palo Verde Avenue, as shown on Appendix A.

2. One non-store front cannabis business is permitted in any one of the four cannabis business overlay zone.

3. The cannabis business overlay zone designation applies to new lots created by a lot split or other division of a lot with the cannabis business overlay zone designation.

4. Cannabis testing laboratories are not restricted to Cannabis Business Overlay Districts and may locate in any I-R zone.

C. Zoning clearance consistency review. A cannabis business must meet land use and building standards pursuant to Chapter 9, Chapter 26, Chapter 31, and Chapter 38 of this Code, including:

1. Conform with the City’s general plan, any applicable specific plan, master plan, and design requirements.

2. Comply with all applicable zoning and related development standards.

3. Be constructed in a manner that minimizes odors to surrounding uses, and promotes quality design and construction, and consistency with the surrounding properties.

4. No cannabis business may be located within a 600-foot (600’) radius measured from property line to property line of a school, day care center, or youth center that is in existence at the time of submission of a completed initial application for a commercial cannabis permit. This prohibition shall not apply to any subsequent renewal of a commercial cannabis permit at the same location.

6. Exterior lighting shall not result in glare on adjoining properties to ensure that all areas of the premises are visible and shall provide increased lighting at all entrances to the premises. The lighting shall be turned on from dusk to dawn.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 37, Packet Page 369

Page 28 of 28 ends

7. Ground cover shall be no higher than two feet; lower tree canopies of mature trees shall be above six feet; and tree canopies shall not interfere with or block lighting.

SECTION 16: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 1-9.2(C) is hereby added to read as follows:

D. Pursuant to Government Code section 53069.4, a property owner shall have a period of at least 10 days to correct or otherwise remedy a violation of City Code section 9-7-05(B), Cannabis Permit Required, that exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis, prior to the issuance of an administrative citation if all the following are true:

1. The tenant is in possession of the property that is the subject of the administrative action;

2. The rental property owner or agent can provide evidence that the rental or lease agreement prohibits the cultivation of cannabis; and

3. The rental property owner or agent did not know the tenant was illegally cultivating cannabis and no complaint, property inspection, or other information cause the rental property owner or agent to have actual notice of the illegal cannabis cultivation.

SECTION 17. Severance. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 18. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective thirty days from the date of adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 38, Packet Page 370 Del Rey
Oaks
Pacific Grove
Sand City
Seaside

H ERRMANN DR

PLUMME R ST

PRIVATE BOLIO RD

STILLWELL AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

PACIFIC
ST

PATTON AVE

VIA PARAISO

HOFFMAN AVE

ENGLISH AVE

EL CAMINITO DEL NORTE

REDWOOD AVE

BEACH WAY

PEBBLE ST

FIGUEROA ST

CUNNINGHAM RD

ORANGE AVE

MONROE ST
CANYON

DEL REY
BLVD

NEWTON ST

EL DORADO ST

VIA DEL REY

CONTRA COSTA ST

LIGHTHOUSE AVE

CEDAR ST

AIRPORT RD

CASA VERDE WAY

LINE ST

F TI CHAVE

CORPORAL EVANS RD

MARTIN ST

ELCAMINITO

JEFFERSON ST

CASANOVA AVE

FREMONT ST

EIGHTH ST

BUFFALO SOLDIER TRAIL

DEL MONTE AVE HANNON AVE

LAINE ST

CEDAR ST

MONTECITO AVE

LAKE DEL MONTE DR

MITCHER ST

CORPORAL EWINGRD

TIOGA AVE

INFANTRY ST

N FREMONT ST

TOYON AVE

PARK AVE
CAMINO

AGUAJITO

MADISON ST

ALAMEDA ST
VIA

JOAQUIN

CASS ST
CALLE

PRINCIPAL

OCEAN AVE

BELDEN ST

SPENCER ST

SLOAT AVE

MANZANITA
ST
RAMP

VIAMIRADA

EDINBURGH
CIR

ORTIZ AVE
VAN

BUREN CIR

SPRAY AVE

HAWTHORNE ST

PINE ST

DELA VINA AVE

GARDEN AVE

ABREGO ST

HOLLY ST

WEBSTER ST

DAVID AVE

JOHNSON ST

RAMONA AVE

BUSH ST

CLAY ST

FERN ST

AVIATIONLN
HIGH
ST

W FRANKLIN ST

HARTNELL ST

COLONEL
BISHOP
CT

SCOTT ST

CORTES ST

ROBERTS AVE

PARK AVE

WAINWRIGHT ST

SAN BERNABE
DR

AGUAJITO RD

ESTRELLA
AVE

CANNERY ROW

JOSSELYN

CANYON RD

DRAKE AVE

MCNEAR ST
OAK ST

LAKE DR

PEARL ST

NINTH ST

SHASTA AVE

CAMINO EL ESTERO
ARMYST
COAST

GUARD PIER

MESA RD
IVY ST

DUNECREST AVE

RAMONA CT

OHARE AVE

MAJOR SHERMAN LN

ELDER AVE

E FRANKLIN ST

BRANNER AVE

SERRA AVE

SURF WAY

IRVING AVE

MENNEK EN LOOP

TISDALE RD

ADAMS ST

DUTRA ST

PIERCE ST

SARGENT CT

VIRGIN AVE
CORTES
ST

COLTON ST

ROBINSON ST

HARRISON ST

TENTH ST
RAMP

MORSE DR

DEL ROBLES
AVE

GRANT AVE

STILLWELL
AVE

PRESCOTT AVE

GLENWOODCRI

ENCINA AVE
DUNE C
REST
L N

BONIFACIO PL

MUNRAS AVE

CHUALAR PL
PALO

VERDE AVE

VAN BUREN ST

MCCLELLAN AVE

TYLER ST

DICKMAN AVE

SEQUOIA AVE

KOLB AVE
BRUCE
ARISS
WAY

ENCINA AVE

OLYMPIA AVE

JACKSON ST

HELLAM ST

THIRD ST

MONTEREY
CIR

MCCAIN ST

ROOSEVELT ST

VI A LAVANDERA

VIA CAMPANA

DORMODY CT

UNION ST

SECOND ST
OCEAN

VIEW BLVD

EUCLID AVE

ARCHER ST

JOHN ST

FOURTH ST

CARMELO
ST

ALVARADO ST

FOAM ST

FAIRGROUND RD

ALVARADO ST

LAKE ST

CHURCH ST

GARDNERS RD

FIRST ST

SEVENTH ST

VIA DEL PINAR

HALSEY AVE

STUARTAVE

SIXTH ST

ANITA ST

WAVE ST

KIT CARSON RD

OLIVIER ST

COPA DEL ORO

PORTOLA
PLZ

FOUNTAIN AVE

DELA VINA AVE

WOODCREST LN

VETERANS DR

DOUD AVE

WATSON ST

LARKIN ST

SHI R L PAT WAY
S PALO

VERDE AVE

HOUSTON ST

BUTLER RD

POL K ST

AIR POR T
WAY

LANTERN LN

DAVIS LN

SAND DUNES DR

RALSTON
DR

FISHNET RD
ORD ST

PERRY LN

MARK THOMAS DR

ENGLISH AVE

RAMONA AVE

MARGARET ST

VIAGAYUBA CARMELITO AVE

ALMA ST

EARDLEY AVE
M

ANZANITA ST

LOGANLN

BOULDRY RD

DUNES DR

VIA CHUALAR

DEL ROSA AVE

EL CAMINO

COSTANOANDR

NORTH ST

N O RTH ST

ALCALDE AVE

OLD GOLF COURSE RD

TIDE AVE

SEAFOAM AVE

CABRILLO ST

COT T A GE WAY

COOPER ST
WHARF
#1

STONE RD
RAMP

HELVIC AVE

EL CALLEJONE

PACIF CI ST

SYLVAN RD

SEENO ST

OLD SALINAS HWY

ARTILLERY ST

SCHOOL ST

GARDEN RD

BRUCE LN

EDDIE BURNS LN

C ORPORAL EWING R D
RAMP

DUNDEE DR
RAMP

LA PLAYA ST

LITTLENESS AVE

IRIS CANYON RD

EL CAMINITO DEL S U R

LERWICK DR

EDINBURGH AVE
WHARF #2

DYER RD

ROBERTS AVE
OHARE
AVE
0 285 570 1,140 1,710 2,280 Feet
City of Monterey Proposed Commercial Retail Cannabis Zones Source: City of Monterey Legend
CB1: Lighthouse/Foam
CB2: Downtown
CB3: Wave
CB4: North Fremont
Monterey City Boundary
Coastal Zone (Prohibited)
Storefronts Prohibited
Note: Visible storefronts on Alvarado Street, and Lighthouse District and Wave Street Side Streets prohibited. All stores prohibited in Coastal Zone

APPENDIX A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 39, Packet Page 371 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 1 of 12 ends

APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
CB1 Overlay
001072019000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001032015000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001025010000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001064003000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001015017000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062013000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001066017000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072013000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001063007000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001033004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072003000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001026009000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001053005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001065022000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001025015000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001015011000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001032010000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062018000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072020000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001065001000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001051008000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001065004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001061005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001016015000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072002000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001074010000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071002000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035009000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001015015000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001016014000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001066005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001051012000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001051014000 PC-LH-H1 PC-LH-H1-CB1
001073004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001025009000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071003000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062017000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001063017000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001064005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062021000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072012000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001033007000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062022000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001053024000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 40, Packet Page 372 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 2 of 12 ends

001074004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062020000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001064002000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001051002000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001064001000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001066018000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001053004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001053014000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001025014000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001025013000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001073016000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062001000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035007000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001061006000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001025011000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001063010000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072001000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001074002000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071014000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062016000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071001000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001015016000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001073003000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072015000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001015013000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001015020000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062008000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035006000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001025012000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035015000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072018000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001064004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001063012000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001066007000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035001000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001053021000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001026013000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001065018000 PC-LH-H2 PC-LH-H2-CB1
001015009000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001032011000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001065003000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001016008000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001066006000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 41, Packet Page 373 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 3 of 12 ends

001061002000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001063005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035013000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001034002000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001032016000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001065016000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001063006000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062007000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035008000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035016000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001053025000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062023000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001061009000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071016000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001072017000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001026008000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001073005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071015000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001033005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001015014000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001015012000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071006000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035003000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035002000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001026010000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001074003000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001073002000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001063011000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001061003000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001033006000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001053013000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001073006000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001066004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001035014000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001074006000 PC-LH-H2 PC-LH-H2-CB1
001072010000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071008000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001071010000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001016013000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001062014000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001016006000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001061004000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001015019000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001074005000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001052001000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001052023000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 42, Packet Page 374 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 4 of 12 ends

001052003000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001052008000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001052002000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001052024000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001052007000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
001052006000 PC-LH PC-LH-CB1
CB2 Overlay
001532002000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001532015000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001704002000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001572018000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001383004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001692014000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001726009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001721006000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001725002000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001522015000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-H1-CB2
001385001000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001572019000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-H1-CB2
001713002000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001581023000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001525021000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001525005000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001725006000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001522001000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001725007000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001383009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001692007000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001715003000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001572031000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001535001000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001694008000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001383002000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001571002000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-H1-CB2
001703005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001572004000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001729008000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001721012000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001713008000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001691005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001715008000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001713007000 PC-D-H2-ES PC-D-H2-ES-CB2
001386005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001726003000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001383003000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001572021000 PC-D-H2 PC-D-H2-CB2
001683013000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 43, Packet Page 375 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 5 of 12 ends

001572013000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001572028000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001726020000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001581017000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001722009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001591048000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-H1-CB2
001712010000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001535002000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001691009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001715006000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001572010000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001535005000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001522010000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001571004000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001389005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001728002000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001696004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001535009000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001715013000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001728003000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001723003000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001389004000 PC-D-H1-ES PC-D-H1-ES-CB2
001574028000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001572027000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001726018000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001572029000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001695010000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001691014000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001726008000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001572009000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001725004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001723009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001694010000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001581012000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001715009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001694001000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001533008000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001696008000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001691015000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001703004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001714009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001724001000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001712018000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001712005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001712020000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001523003000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-H1-CB2
001691004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 44, Packet Page 376 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 6 of 12 ends

001715012000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001729002000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001722005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001532001000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001692011000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001722017000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001691007000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001722018000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001712007000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001691006000 PC-D-H1-ES PC-D-H1-ES-CB2
001713004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001525002000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001705007000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001574015000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001727014000 PC-D-H1-ES PC-D-H1-ES-CB2
001532018000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001573015000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001722007000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001704004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001691002000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001712019000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001383007000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001714003000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001534010000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001389002000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001683016000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001385004000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001725008000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001694009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001522009000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001696012000 PC-D-H2 PC-D-H2-CB2
001389008000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001712009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001572020000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001389007000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001572030000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001522014000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001581020000 PC-D-H2 PC-D-H2-CB2
001572032000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001715010000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001581018000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001574011000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001693001000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001573003000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001383005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001581010000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001683011000 PC-D-H1-ES PC-D-H1-ES-CB2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 45, Packet Page 377 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 7 of 12 ends

001727012000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001386004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001522002000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001386003000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001704006000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001723005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001721005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001574005000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001386002000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001714005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001726019000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001522011000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001715007000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001573002000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001712004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001532004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001729004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001533012000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001532011000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001727007000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001694004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001692004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001727002000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001715001000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001692013000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001532014000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001725010000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001712006000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001714008000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001727009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001722003000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001534002000 PC-D-D2 PC-D-D2-CB2
001729007000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-H1-CB2
001714001000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001522003000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001713009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001574016000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001694002000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001572022000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-H1-CB2
001707005000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001722004000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001704003000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001581021000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001573005000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001532006000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001695009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001695011000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 46, Packet Page 378 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 8 of 12 ends

001591057000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-H1-CB2
001534008000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001722012000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001512019000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001726012000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001535011000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001727011000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001725009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001691001000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001705009000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001525022000 PC-D-H2 PC-D-H2-CB2
001575001000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001712013000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001725005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001522004000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-H1-CB2
001532003000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001385002000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001574004000 PC-D PC-D-CB2
001694007000 PC-D-H2 PC-D-CB2
001723006000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001721011000 PC-D-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001534001000 PC-D-D2 PC-D-ES-CB2
001714011000 PC-D-ES PC-D-CB2
001696005000 PC-D-ES PC-D-CB2
001525003000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-ES-CB2
001533011000 PC-D-ES PC-D-H1-ES-CB2
001712021000 PC-D-ES PC-D-CB2
001696009000 PC-D-H1-ES PC-D-ES-CB2
001383001000 PC-D-ES PC-D-CB2
001522013000 PC-D PC-D-ES-CB2
001706004000 PC-D PC-D-ES-CB2
001581022000 PC-D-H1 PC-D-H1-CB2
CB3 Overlay
001023011000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001022019000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027026000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028040000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027045000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001015001000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001015002000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027013000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028061000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028016000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001025005000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027018000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027004000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 47, Packet Page 379 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 9 of 12 ends

001028001000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001023008000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027020000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027007000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027027000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027009000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001016002000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027021000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028006000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001015018000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001013006000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027002000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028052000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028031000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028019000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001025007000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028024000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001026001000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028045000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027051000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027031000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027053000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028046000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028010000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027010000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028028000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028008000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027011000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027032000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027014000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027047000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001022040000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027022000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001015005000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027046000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001022041000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028051000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028005000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028018000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001023009000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001015008000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028041000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028050000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 48, Packet Page 380 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 10 of 12 ends

001027006000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027038000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028021000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001022039000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001015006000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001015003000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027015000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001025004000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001013007000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028058000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027012000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028030000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028003000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001012008000 C-2-H2 C-2-H2-CB3
001028057000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028025000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027023000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027049000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027041000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027043000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028054000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028033000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001022014000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028017000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027008000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028029000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028055000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028023000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027016000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027024000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001012014000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027036000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001022013000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027028000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027030000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027039000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028011000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028034000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028032000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027042000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028022000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027035000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028053000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 49, Packet Page 381 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 11 of 12 ends

001012009000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001026011000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001025006000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001022015000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028037000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027054000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028059000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028002000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001016016000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027044000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027050000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027005000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028014000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028038000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028043000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027003000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027052000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028036000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001022038000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028020000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028062000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001023010000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027019000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001022018000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027034000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028012000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028013000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028035000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001016001000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028044000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028039000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001016005000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001013013000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028048000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028009000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027040000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027048000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027029000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027033000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001015007000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027017000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028056000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027139000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 50, Packet Page 382 Appendix A
Cannabis Business Overlay – Parcel Rezoning

Page 12 of 12 ends

001028026000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028047000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028027000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027037000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028004000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028007000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001022017000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001027025000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028049000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028060000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001028042000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001027001000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001026003000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001017005000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001028015000 C-2-H1 C-2-H1-CB3
001025008000 C-2 C-2-CB3
001012007000 C-2 C-2-CB3
CB4 Overlay
013112039000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013111011000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013112025000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013112026000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013111010000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013181010000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013112033000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013111009000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013181014000 PC-NF-ES PC-NF-ES-CB4
013191018000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013112040000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013181008000 PC-NF-ES PC-NF-ES-CB4
013191009000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013181007000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013181013000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
013104025000 PC-NF PC-NF-CB4
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 51, Packet Page 383 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19

ACCEPTING THE PLANNING OFFICE DETEMRINATION THAT ADOPTION OF A

CANNABIS BUSINESS REGULATIONS ORDINANCE
IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21083.3 AND STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2020, cannabis policy was discussed at a City Council Study Session;
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, staff proposed a plan and timeline for authorizing cannabis businesses in the city;
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3634 to formalize its January 21, 2020 interpretation that cannabis testing laboratories are principally permitted in the I-R zone;
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the City Council directed staff to develop regulations allowing no more than three cannabis retail permits, one each in Downtown, Lighthouse, and Cannery Row;
WHEREAS, community outreach meetings were held on January 26, 2021 and January 28, 2021 to discuss cannabis policy. Online and postcard surveys were conducted in January - February 2021 to receive public input on cannabis policy and additional City Council discussions were held on February 24, 2021, April 13, 2021, May 4, 2021, and August 17, 2021; WHEREAS, on July 25, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution 22-097, placing a Cannabis Business License Tax on the ballot for the November 2022 election; WHEREAS, Measure J, the city’s Cannabis Business License Tax, passed on November 8, 2022, with more than 65% of the voters voting in the election approving the measure;
WHEREAS, the city intends to restrict access to retail storefront facilities, whether adult use, or medical, or both, to ages 21 and older;
WHEREAS, the city intends to authorize deliveries of medicinal cannabis to individuals 18 years and older to facilitate access to medicinal cannabis consistent with SB 1186 (Weiner); WHEREAS, the city intends to authorize one non-storefront retailer requiring delivery of medicinal cannabis to be consistent with SB 1186 (Weiner); WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023 the City Council considered the project description and on June 6, 2023, the City Council approved it as modified by including an additional storefront retailer and up to two temporary cannabis events to guide environmental review; WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission considered and recommended amendments to the zoning code to the City Council; Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 52, Packet Page 384 2 WHEREAS, at a public hearing on November 7, 2023, the City Council considered amendments to the zoning code to authorize and regulate cannabis businesses; WHEREAS, an exemption review (Exhibit A) was prepared for a cannabis business regulations ordinance (Exhibit B) that would affect Chapters 1, 7, 19, 22, and 38 of the Monterey City Code (MCC), of which Chapters 1, 7, 19, and 22 are under the direct purview of the City Council;
WHEREAS, based on the exemption review (Exhibit A), the City’s General Plan EIR has adequately addressed the following issues, and no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3: aesthetics; agricultural resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils (fault rupture, seismic and geologic hazards, erosion, soils,); hazards/hazardous materials (use/disposal of hazardous materials, create hazard, exposure to hazardous materials, airport safety, emergency response); hydrology-water quality (water quality, groundwater, drainage, flood hazards); land use; mineral resources; noise (noise increases, vibration); population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation (conflicts with program or policy, hazardous design, emergency access); and utilities (water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal); and cumulative impacts.

The following project impacts were analyzed and determined to result in no impact or to be less than significant due to substantial mitigation resulting from General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the City: forest resources; energy; geology and soils (paleontological resources); greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; hazards/hazardous materials (wildfire hazards); hydrologywater quality (conflicts with plans); transportation (conflict with CEQA Guidelines-VMT); tribal cultural resources; and utilities (infrastructure); wildfire. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR, and no further environmental review or analysis is necessary pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby accepts the Planning Office determination that the adoption of a Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance is exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 53, Packet Page 385 3 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 54, Packet Page 386 Exhibit A
Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -1- October 2023
City of Monterey

E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T

FOR DETERMINATION OF CEQA EXEMPTION
I. Background

1. Project Title: Cannabis Business Regulations

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Buggert, Associate Planner [email protected], (831) 646-3885

4. Project Location: Designated commercial zones within City of Monterey

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Monterey, Same address as above

6. General Plan Designation: Unknown sites within Commercial and Industrial land use designations

7. Zoning: Unknown sites within the Planned Community Downtown (PC-D), Planned Community Lighthouse (PC-LH), Planned Community North Fremont (PC-NF), Commercial-2 (C-2) (specifically fronting Wave Street), and Industrial (I-R) districts

8. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The city of Monterey (city) is located on the Monterey Peninsula in Monterey County. The city is bordered by the cities of Seaside and Del Rey Oaks to the east, Pacific Grove to the west, unincorporated Monterey County to the west and south, and Monterey Bay to the north; see Figure 1. The city covers 8.6 square miles of land area, or approximately 5,498 acres. Approximately 3.5 square miles of water area in the Monterey Bay is also within the city limits.

9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The project consists of amendments to the Monterey City Code to be adopted by the City of Monterey. There are no other known agencies that would have approval authority.

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? Yes
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 55, Packet Page 387 Exhibit A
Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -2- October 2023
II. Project Description
A. Project Background
The City proposes an ordinance that includes a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code, including the Zoning Ordinance, to authorize and regulate the number and type of cannabis businesses within the city. As indicated in the draft ordinance, all forms of cannabis businesses currently are prohibited in the city, except for cannabis testing laboratories, which were first authorized at a public hearing held in January 2020 where the City Council interpreted the City Code as allowing that use in the Industrial, Administration, and Research (I-R) District.

In addition, the City has issued permits for two annual, temporary events held at the Monterey County Fairgrounds in which sale and/or consumption of cannabis products is permitted (California Roots Festival and Rebels and Renegades Music Festival).

In late 2020, the City Council began discussions on cannabis policy, and in 2021, the City Council directed staff to develop regulations allowing no more than three cannabis retail business permits, one each in the Downtown, Lighthouse, and Cannery Row areas of the city. The City placed a Cannabis Business License Tax on the ballot for the November 2022 election, which was approved by more than 65 percent of the voters voting in the election. On June 6, 2023, the City Council approved a modified project description that included an additional storefront retailer for a total of four and up to two temporary cannabis events, to guide environmental review. The project description also included provisions to be consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 1186 (Weiner) to authorize deliveries of medicinal cannabis to individuals 18 years and older to facilitate access to medicinal cannabis and to authorize one non-storefront retailer requiring delivery of medicinal cannabis.

B. Overview of Proposed Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to regulate commercial cannabis activity in the city; to limit youth access and exposure to cannabis and cannabis products; allow cannabis businesses while imposing sensible regulations on commercial activities to protect the city’s residents, neighborhoods, and businesses from disproportionately negative impacts; create jobs and tax revenue for the city; and to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.

The proposed ordinance (project) adds new regulations known as the Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance, which would authorize limited retail sales, distribution/delivery, and limited special events, as well as continued laboratory testing that is already permitted in I-R zone districts. All other cannabis business uses not listed in the proposed ordinance would continue to be prohibited. Therefore, cannabis cultivation, processing or manufacturing would not be permitted under the proposed ordinance. Any existing cannabis business that does not hold a cannabis business permit from the City after the ordinance is adopted or that is not in compliance with the ordinance would be required to cease operations. The ordinance also includes a series of minor amendments to other sections of the City Code as described further below.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 56, Packet Page 388 Exhibit A
Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -3- October 2023
The proposed ordinance limits storefront cannabis retailers to no more than four locations in the city and limits non-storefront retailers (delivery only) to one location. There would be no limit on cannabis testing laboratory businesses or distribution permits with distribution facilities located outside of the city. Special events would be limited to two annual events at the Monterey County Fairgrounds located within city limits. Under the proposed ordinance, a new Cannabis Business Overlay District (CB) with four overlay zones (CB-1, CB-2, CB-3, and CB-4) would be created within existing Planned Community districts (Downtown, Lighthouse, and North Fremont), and within a specified area of the C-2 zone district; one retail storefront business would be allowed at each overlay zone.

The proposed ordinance also includes requirements for submittal and approval of permit applications as well as operational requirements for retail and testing laboratory cannabis businesses. The application requirements identify measures the cannabis business must take ensure operational security. It also requires the applicant to implement measures that reduce the business’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon footprint. A zoning clearance consistency review would be required with specific design requirements that minimize odors and prevent offsite light and glare from exterior lighting. Additionally, the ordinance prohibits cannabis businesses within a 600-foot radius, measured from property line to property line, of a school, day care center, or youth center. The proposed ordinance also describes allowable hours the storefront retail businesses may be open to the public: 9:00 AM through 9:00 PM, seven days a week.

C. Description of Project Elements
Proposed Cannabis Business Regulations
The primary component of the proposed project is the addition of new regulations for cannabis businesses within the city. The proposed ordinance consists of adding Chapter 7, Article 7 to the City Code, which is comprised of Sections 7.7.00 – 7.7.25. The new sections include purpose and intent (Sec. 7-7.01), definitions (Sec. 7-702), and specific provisions to regulate the type and location of cannabis businesses as summarized below. Section 7-7.04 indicates that cannabis businesses (permittees, owners, employees, and managers) are responsible to ensure that a cannabis business is always operating in a manner compliant with all applicable state and local laws, including any subsequently enacted state and local laws, or regulatory, licensing, certification standards or requirements, and any specific additional operating procedures or requirements.
• License Types and Number Authorized. Sec. 7-7.06 specifically authorizes the number and types of cannabis licenses in the city; the types of licenses are listed per the California Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) cannabis license types as follows:
 Storefront Retailer: Type 10A (adult-use) and/or Type 10M (medicinal).  Non-storefront Retailer: Type 9M (medicinal cannabis delivery required) and Type 9A.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 57, Packet Page 389 Exhibit A
Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -4- October 2023
 Testing Laboratory: Type 8.
 Distributor: Type 11 (authorized use is limited to distribution facility located outside of the city and distributing into the city).
 Cannabis Event Organizer: Type 14 and Temporary Cannabis Events.

Under the proposed ordinance, 10 retail permits (adult use [Type 10A], medicinal [Type 10b], or both) may be authorized at no more than four locations in the city; one Type 9 non-storefront (delivery) retail permit would be authorized to operate, which is required to deliver medicinal cannabis. The ordinance does not set a limit on the number of Type 8 cannabis testing laboratory businesses, the number of delivery businesses (Type 9 or Type 10) outside of the city (that deliver into the city), or the number of cannabis event organizers (Type 14). The ordinance does limit the number of temporary cannabis events to two per year.
• Location Limitations. Sec. 7-7.07 of the proposed ordinance establishes locations where cannabis retail and testing laboratory businesses can be permitted. The section references pending amendments and additions to the Monterey City Code Chapter 38 (Zoning Ordinance), that would establish a cannabis business overlay district. The section also establishes that zoning clearance shall be obtained for cannabis business prior to the city issuing a cannabis permit. It states that temporary cannabis events are only authorized at the Monterey County Fairgrounds, located at 2000 Fairgrounds Road, Monterey.
• Retail and Testing Laboratory Permit Application and Issuance. Sec. 7-7.09 of the proposed ordinance establishes the permit application process for cannabis businesses.

Amongst other requirements, it requires applicants to submit the following: business plan, security plan, transportation plan, statement of experience, and measures that the business will take to reduce GHG emissions and carbon footprint. The proposed ordinance sets forth the terms for acceptance and review of applications (Sec. 7-7.10 and 7.7-11) and provides the terms for cannabis permit issuance (Sec. 7-7.12). Permits would be valid for one year from the date of issuance and must be renewed annually. The regulations also include provisions for denial of permits (Sec. 7-7.13) and modification, suspension, revocation or non-renewal of cannabis business permits (Sec. 7-7.14 through 7.16) with notice, hearing, and appeal requirements established in Sec. 7.7-17. • Retail and Testing Laboratory Cannabis Business Operational Requirements. Sec. 7-7.18 of the proposed ordinance establishes operating requirements for cannabis businesses.

It allows for investigating officials to conduct inspections and lists the records that that operators must maintain. The regulations prohibit consumption of cannabis, as well as the sale, dispensing, or consumption of alcoholic beverages or tobacco, on the premises of cannabis businesses. It also provides the security measures operators must maintain; these include, but are not limited to: sensors, panic buttons, real-time alarm, window/roof hatches, stable power source during potential outages, secured doors, and designated security representative to the city. The operator is also to notify the Monterey Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 58, Packet Page 390 Exhibit A
Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -5- October 2023
Police Department within 24 hours of certain security incidents. Amongst other requirements, this section of the ordinance establishes standards for signage, odor control, and hours of operation. Specifically, storefront hours that are open to the public shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 AM through 9:00 PM seven days a week.

Additional operating requirements for storefront retail businesses are specified, including that storefront retailers shall not conduct sales exclusively by delivery and shall not provide cannabis to an individual in excess of the amount that is consistent with personal possession and use limits allowed by the state. Retailers may have only that quantity of cannabis and cannabis products to meet the daily demand readily available for sale onsite in the retail sales area of the retailer. Additional product may be stored in a secured, locked area to which customers, vendors, and visitors shall not have access. Ancillary manufacturing and cultivation at the premises are not permitted. The operating requirements also specify that retailers shall not operate as or with a drive-in or drivethrough at which cannabis goods are sold to persons within or about a motor vehicle.

A non-storefront retailer permittee shall be required to deliver medicinal cannabis, and the permitted premises of a non-storefront retailer shall be closed to the public. Cannabis Testing Laboratories shall not be open to the public.
• Requirements for Distributors and Retailers Outside of City. Sec. 7-7.19 and 7-7.20 establish permit and operating requirements for distributors with distribution facilities located outside of the city and distributing inside the city and for retailers with stores located outside of the city and delivering inside the city. • Temporary Cannabis Events. Sec. 7-7.21 provides the terms and conditions for which a temporary cannabis event may be held. There is no limit on the number of cannabis event organizers allowed in the city, but as previously indicated, no more than two temporary cannabis event permits may be issued by the City per calendar year. Applicants for a temporary cannabis event permit are required to obtain a DCC cannabis event organizer license, a DCC temporary cannabis event license, and a valid cannabis business license tax registration certificate. All licenses and permits required under state and local law shall be obtained prior to the event and shall remain in full force and effect throughout the duration of the event.

Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
As mentioned above in the description of Sec. 7-7.07, the project would also amend Chapter 38 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Monterey City Code. Article 2, Sec. 38-6(C) would be amended to insert the Cannabis Business Overlay District (CB) into the list of overlay districts within the city.

Article 3, Sec. 38-11 would be amended to insert definitions of a day care center, playground, school, or youth center, which relate to the allowed location of cannabis businesses. As indicated below, cannabis businesses would not be allowed within 600-foot radius of a day care center, playground, school, or youth center.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 59, Packet Page 391 Exhibit A
Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -6- October 2023
Article 16D, Sec. 38-99.8 would be added to the Zoning Ordinance; it establishes the Cannabis Business Overlay District (CB) in reference to the City’s Zoning Map. This section allows for four storefront retail cannabis businesses; one within each of overlay zones it established (CB-1, CB2, CB-3, and CB-4). The proposed overlay zones, as depicted on Figure 2, are summarized below:
• CB-1: Lighthouse and Foam Street area, except that no cannabis business shall have a retail frontage on any cross street with Lighthouse Avenue or Foam Street; • CB-2: the Alvarado District, except that no cannabis business shall have a retail frontage on Alvarado Street;
• CB-3: on C-2 parcels near Cannery Row, except that no cannabis business shall have a retail frontage on any cross street with Wave Street or allow public access from the Recreation Trail; and
• CB-4: on North Fremont Street, between Airport Road and Palo Verde Avenue. • An unlimited number of cannabis testing laboratories in any cannabis I-R overlay zone.

This section also establishes zoning clearance consistency review requirements for proposed cannabis businesses. Accordingly, businesses are required to conform with applicable general plan, specific plan, master plan, and design requirements; zoning and related development standards; regulations for exterior lighting; and, be constructed in a manner that minimized odors to surrounding uses. This section also establishes that no cannabis business may be located within a 600-foot radius measured from property line to property line of a school, day care center, or youth center that is in existence at the time of submission of a completed initial application for a commercial cannabis permit.

Other Minor City Code Amendments
The proposed ordinance also includes the following minor amendments to other sections of the City Code:
• Renames Chapter 19, Licenses, Fees and Charges, to Chapter 19. Business Licenses, Fees, and Charges.
• Renames Chapter 7, Reserved, to Chapter 7. Health and Safety Business Regulations. • Recodify Chapter 19, Article 3, Sections 19-90 through 19-100 as Chapter 7, Article 1, Health Permits, Section 7-1.00 through 7-1.10.
• Recodify Chapter 19, Article 5, Sections 19-105 through 19-121 as Chapter 7, Article 2, Tobacco Retail License, Section 7-2.00 through 7-2.16.
• Recodify Chapter 22, Article 1, Sections 22-31 through 22-31.16 as Chapter 7, Article 3, Massage Establishments and Massage Therapists, Section 7-3.00 through 7-3.16. • Repeal Chapter 22, Article 4, Section 22-39, Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Delivery, and Cultivation, and Marijuana Dispensaries and Marijuana Sales, in its entirety. • Renumber and recodify Chapter 22, Article 1, Section 22-32 as Chapter 7, Article 5, Second Hand Dealers, Section 7-5.00.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 60, Packet Page 392 Exhibit A
Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -7- October 2023
• Renumber and recodify Chapter 22, Article 1, Section 22-34 d as Monterey City Code, Chapter 7, Article 6, Regulation of Escort Services, Section 7.6.00. • Repeal Chapter 38, Article 8, Section 38-41(H) through 38-41(J).

D. Land Use Assumptions for Environmental Review

The project does not propose any specific new development; however, it would allow cannabis retail, distribution, and testing businesses that are consistent with the ordinance to be permitted in the future. For the purposes of this analysis, a realistic, worst-case scenario was developed to evaluate the project’s potential impacts. A total of four storefront cannabis retail businesses and one nonstorefront retail (delivery) business would be permitted by the project. At this time, the specific locations of these facilities not exactly known, although they would be allowed in the locations specified overlay zones designated by the ordinance (see Figure 2), and as indicated above, include specified locations along Lighthouse Avenue and Foam Street (CB-1), Alvarado Street (CB-2), C-2 parcels near the Cannery Row area (CB-3), and along North Fremont Street (CB-4). As noted above, no more than one cannabis retail business would be allowed within each zone. Further, all of the proposed overlay district locations are outside of the coastal zone. In addition, only one nonstorefront business (distribution) would be permitted within any overlay district.

Given the limited commercial areas in which cannabis retail businesses would be allowed to operate, it is assumed that the four storefront retail businesses and one non-storefront business would occupy existing buildings within the specified overlay districts and that no new structures would be constructed as these areas are already developed. Future construction would be expected to primarily involve interior tenant improvements to ensure the businesses are compliant with the provisions of the proposed cannabis ordinance and state law, related to security and odor control, and consideration of potential environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA as part of the future permit application review.

New cannabis retail businesses that would be permitted under the proposed ordinance are expected to be located within existing buildings and would represent a change in a commercial retail use over what previously occupied the space. Cannabis retail businesses would be expected to have similar number of employees and customers as other comparable retail businesses currently permitted in the city. For comparison, a review of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates indicates that a retail cannabis business would generate daily and peak hour trips that fall within the range of trips generated by a pharmacy/drugstore or liquor store.

In addition, the proposed ordinance limits special events to two annual events to be held at the Monterey Fairgrounds. Currently, two such events are held at the Fairgrounds. Thus, it would be expected that either these two annual events would continue or new events would replace the existing events, but in either case there would be no net increase in annual special temporary events over what currently occurs.

Cannabis testing laboratory businesses would continue to be allowed in the I-R zone district as allowed under current regulations. Therefore, the proposed ordinance would not result in changes regarding these types of businesses.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 61, Packet Page 393 Exhibit A
Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -8- October 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 62, Packet Page 394 MAP 1

SHOWING PLANNING AREA
B A Y
O F

M O N T E R E Y
Project Location
Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
FIGURE 1
Path: Z:\Projects\j964700\j964740\MAPDOC
Source: City of Monterey
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 63, Packet Page 395 Del Rey
Oaks
Pacific Grove
Sand City
Seaside

H ERRMANN DR

PLUMME R ST

PRIVATE BOLIO RD

STILLWELL AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

PACIFIC
ST

PATTON AVE

VIA PARAISO

HOFFMAN AVE

ENGLISH AVE

EL CAMINITO DEL NORTE

REDWOOD AVE

BEACH WAY

PEBBLE ST

FIGUEROA ST

CUNNINGHAM RD

ORANGE AVE

MONROE ST
CANYON

DEL REY
BLVD

NEWTON ST

EL DORADO ST

VIA DEL REY

CONTRA COSTA ST

LIGHTHOUSE AVE

CEDAR ST

AIRPORT RD

CASA VERDE WAY

LINE ST

F TI CHAVE

CORPORAL EVANS RD

MARTIN ST

ELCAMINITO

JEFFERSON ST

CASANOVA AVE

FREMONT ST

EIGHTH ST

BUFFALO SOLDIER TRAIL

DEL MONTE AVE HANNON AVE

LAINE ST

CEDAR ST

MONTECITO AVE

LAKE DEL MONTE DR

MITCHER ST

CORPORAL EWINGRD

TIOGA AVE

INFANTRY ST

N FREMONT ST

TOYON AVE

PARK AVE
CAMINO

AGUAJITO

MADISON ST

ALAMEDA ST
VIA

JOAQUIN

CASS ST
CALLE

PRINCIPAL

OCEAN AVE

BELDEN ST

SPENCER ST

SLOAT AVE

MANZANITA
ST
RAMP

VIAMIRADA

EDINBURGH
CIR

ORTIZ AVE
VAN

BUREN CIR

SPRAY AVE

HAWTHORNE ST

PINE ST

DELA VINA AVE

GARDEN AVE

ABREGO ST

HOLLY ST

WEBSTER ST

DAVID AVE

JOHNSON ST

RAMONA AVE

BUSH ST

CLAY ST

FERN ST

AVIATIONLN
HIGH
ST

W FRANKLIN ST

HARTNELL ST

COLONEL
BISHOP
CT

SCOTT ST

CORTES ST

ROBERTS AVE

PARK AVE

WAINWRIGHT ST

SAN BERNABE
DR

AGUAJITO RD

ESTRELLA
AVE

CANNERY ROW

JOSSELYN

CANYON RD

DRAKE AVE

MCNEAR ST
OAK ST

LAKE DR

PEARL ST

NINTH ST

SHASTA AVE

CAMINO EL ESTERO
ARMYST
COAST

GUARD PIER

MESA RD
IVY ST

DUNECREST AVE

RAMONA CT

OHARE AVE

MAJOR SHERMAN LN

ELDER AVE

E FRANKLIN ST

BRANNER AVE

SERRA AVE

SURF WAY

IRVING AVE

MENNEK EN LOOP

TISDALE RD

ADAMS ST

DUTRA ST

PIERCE ST

SARGENT CT

VIRGIN AVE
CORTES
ST

COLTON ST

ROBINSON ST

HARRISON ST

TENTH ST
RAMP

MORSE DR

DEL ROBLES
AVE

GRANT AVE

STILLWELL
AVE

PRESCOTT AVE

GLENWOODCRI

ENCINA AVE
DUNE C
REST
L N

BONIFACIO PL

MUNRAS AVE

CHUALAR PL
PALO

VERDE AVE

VAN BUREN ST

MCCLELLAN AVE

TYLER ST

DICKMAN AVE

SEQUOIA AVE

KOLB AVE
BRUCE
ARISS
WAY

ENCINA AVE

OLYMPIA AVE

JACKSON ST

HELLAM ST

THIRD ST

MONTEREY
CIR

MCCAIN ST

ROOSEVELT ST

VI A LAVANDERA

VIA CAMPANA

DORMODY CT

UNION ST

SECOND ST
OCEAN

VIEW BLVD

EUCLID AVE

ARCHER ST

JOHN ST

FOURTH ST

CARMELO
ST

ALVARADO ST

FOAM ST

FAIRGROUND RD

ALVARADO ST

LAKE ST

CHURCH ST

GARDNERS RD

FIRST ST

SEVENTH ST

VIA DEL PINAR

HALSEY AVE

STUARTAVE

SIXTH ST

ANITA ST

WAVE ST

KIT CARSON RD

OLIVIER ST

COPA DEL ORO

PORTOLA
PLZ

FOUNTAIN AVE

DELA VINA AVE

WOODCREST LN

VETERANS DR

DOUD AVE

WATSON ST

LARKIN ST

SHI R L PAT WAY
S PALO

VERDE AVE

HOUSTON ST

BUTLER RD

POL K ST

AIR POR T
WAY

LANTERN LN

DAVIS LN

SAND DUNES DR

RALSTON
DR

FISHNET RD
ORD ST

PERRY LN

MARK THOMAS DR

ENGLISH AVE

RAMONA AVE

MARGARET ST

VIAGAYUBA CARMELITO AVE

ALMA ST

EARDLEY AVE
M

ANZANITA ST

LOGANLN

BOULDRY RD

DUNES DR

VIA CHUALAR

DEL ROSA AVE

EL CAMINO

COSTANOANDR

NORTH ST

N O RTH ST

ALCALDE AVE

OLD GOLF COURSE RD

TIDE AVE

SEAFOAM AVE

CABRILLO ST

COT T A GE WAY

COOPER ST
WHARF
#1

STONE RD
RAMP

HELVIC AVE

EL CALLEJONE

PACIF CI ST

SYLVAN RD

SEENO ST

OLD SALINAS HWY

ARTILLERY ST

SCHOOL ST

GARDEN RD

BRUCE LN

EDDIE BURNS LN

C ORPORAL EWING R D
RAMP

DUNDEE DR
RAMP

LA PLAYA ST

LITTLENESS AVE

IRIS CANYON RD

EL CAMINITO DEL S U R

LERWICK DR

EDINBURGH AVE
WHARF #2

DYER RD

ROBERTS AVE
OHARE
AVE
0 285 570 1,140 1,710 2,280 Feet
Figure 2 - City of Monterey Proposed Commercial Retail Cannabis Zones Source: City of Monterey Legend
CB1: Lighthouse/Foam
CB2: Downtown
CB3: Wave
CB4: North Fremont
Monterey City Boundary
Coastal Zone (Prohibited)
Storefronts Prohibited
Note: Visible storefronts on Alvarado Street, and Lighthouse District and Wave Street Side Streets prohibited. All stores prohibited in Coastal Zone Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 64, Packet Page 396 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -11- October 2023
III. Environmental Checklist
A. Introduction and Background
In analyzing a proposed project, the City may consider whether existing environmental documents already provide an adequate analysis of potential environmental impacts. An earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program environmental impact report (EIR), or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions, it can be determined that one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (State CEQA Guidelines section 15063(b)(1)(C)). If an earlier analysis is used, the Initial Study checklist discussion should identify: a) the earlier analyses and state where they are available for review; b) identify which effects were adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and c) describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project.

CEQA also allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified General Plan EIR for a project that is consistent with the General Plan. CEQA Guidelines section 15183 provides for streamlined environmental review or exemption for projects consistent with the General Plan for which an EIR was certified. Pursuant to subdivision (a), CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.

Pursuant to section 15183, subdivision (b), in approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

Subdivision (f) indicates that an effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if “uniformly applied development policies or standards” have been previously adopted by the city or county with a Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 65, Packet Page 397 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -12- October 2023
finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects. Subdivision (c) further states that If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. Examples of uniformly applied development standards provided in subdivision (g) include a range of ordinances. According to subdivision (h), an environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. CEQA Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (f) also provides that “[D]evelopment policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located…. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance.”
Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15183, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section. For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan.

Under these provisions of CEQA, a project that is consistent with a General Plan that was adopted pursuant to a certified EIR, could be potentially, partially, or wholly exempt from further CEQA analyses.

B. Use of Earlier Analyses
In January 2005, the Monterey City Council adopted an updated General Plan after certifying an EIR for the plan, and has subsequently amended the General Plan a number of times since then. The City of Monterey General Plan EIR (SCH# 2003081011) includes the Draft EIR volume (July 2004) and the Final EIR volume (October 2004). The General Plan EIR reviewed all of the topics included on the Appendix G environmental checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines at the time the EIR was prepared, as well as all sections required to be included in an EIR.

The General Plan EIR is a “program” EIR prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15168, which reviewed environmental impacts associated with future development and within the City’s planning area that would be accommodated by the General Plan. A program EIR can be used for subsequent projects implemented within the scope of the program/plan.

The General Plan includes a range of land use designations, including commercial and industrial, and specific locations for these uses are included on the General Plan Land Use Plan. General Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 66, Packet Page 398 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -13- October 2023
Plan Land Use Policy a.1 calls for implementation of the Land Use Plan Map designations. It specifically indicates that the commercial land use designation applies to all types of commercial areas and allows the full range of commercial uses, including, retail, office, visitor commercial, and professional offices, and the industrial land use category “applies to existing and future industrial areas in the city.” The General Plan further indicates that the Zoning Ordinance is the primary implementation tool for General Plan land use policies.

Project Consistency Review
This section evaluates consistency of the proposed Cannabis Business Regulations, including proposed overlay zone districts, with the findings of the City’s General Plan EIR pursuant to the applicable provisions of CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

The City’s General Plan establishes the framework for future development and provides comprehensive policies for the City, and the locations in which cannabis businesses can be located are consistent with the commercial and industrial land use designations set forth in the General Plan Land Use Map. The specified areas in which cannabis retail businesses can be located are primarily within commercial areas for which Specific Plans have been adopted by the City. The underlying Planned Community (PC) (Downtown, Lighthouse, and North Fremont) and Community Commercial (C-2) zone districts would apply to proposed Cannabis Business Overlay Districts, and the Industrial (I-R) zone district would apply to cannabis testing laboratories as currently allowed. These underlying zone districts provide the governing regulations for each district, and the PC zone districts specifically reference standards in adopted community plans or specific plans. Specific plans have been adopted for the Downtown, Lighthouse, and North Fremont areas.

The purpose of the Cannabis Business Overlay Districts is to establish locations in the City that permit cannabis retail businesses, which would be subject to development standards set forth in the underlying zone district or Specific Plan that guides development in three specified PC districts. The proposed Cannabis Overlay would not introduce new land use designations or otherwise alter existing general land use patterns or development standards. The proposed project includes four cannabis overlay districts, which would be consistent with the provisions of the underlying zone districts, including permitted uses, and with adopted specific plans. The specific plans include governing land use and development regulations and standards. The proposed project, including establishment of Cannabis Business Overlay Districts, would not introduce new land use designations or otherwise alter general land use patterns or development standards. Future permitted uses would be subject to the requirements of these plans. Retail uses are permitted in all underlying zone districts that would be covered by the new Cannabis Business Overlay district.

Neither the General Plan nor underlying zone districts establish density or intensity of building use requirements within the commercial and industrial land use designations and zone districts, except for specified building height limits. While the General Plan EIR considered the impacts of repurposing, intensifying, and redeveloping existing developed parcels in the city as a whole, including commercial and industrial uses, specific future development was not specifically Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 67, Packet Page 399 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -14- October 2023
evaluated in the EIR. Thus, the proposed ordinance and regulations governing type and location of cannabis retail businesses would be consistent with existing General Plan and zoning district requirements, including density.

C. Environmental Exemption Checklist Review
The purpose of the checklist presented on the following pages is to evaluate the impact categories covered in the City’s certified General Plan EIR to determine whether the project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed in the EIR or whether any new significant impacts peculiar to the project or project site would result. Where an impact resulting from the project was adequately analyzed previously, the review provides a cross-reference to the pages in the General Plan EIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. The checklist also identifies whether the project involves new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR or new significant impacts peculiar to the site or project. As indicated above, an impact would not be considered “peculiar” to the site or project if uniformly applied development policies or standards would substantially mitigate an environmental effect. Therefore, the following review includes mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR that would be applicable to the site or project and/or relevant applicable development policies or standards that would be applied to the project.

The General Plan EIR is on file at the City’s Planning Office, 570 Pacific St Monterey, CA 93940, California from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM and 1:00 to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. The document also is available for review on the City of Monterey’s website at:
https://monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/land_use_plans.php.

D. Conclusion
Based on the following review, it has been determined that the City’s General Plan EIR has adequately addressed the following issues, and no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3: aesthetics; agricultural resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils (fault rupture, seismic and geologic hazards, erosion, soils,); hazards/hazardous materials (use/disposal of hazardous materials, create hazard, exposure to hazardous materials ,airport safety, emergency response); hydrology-water quality (water quality, groundwater, drainage, flood hazards); land use; mineral resources; noise (noise increases, vibration); population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation (conflicts with program or policy, hazardous design, emergency access); and utilities (water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal); and cumulative impacts.

The following project impacts were analyzed and determined to result in no impact or to be less than significant due to substantial mitigation resulting from General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the City: forest resources; energy; geology and soils (paleontological resources); greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; hazards/hazardous materials (wildfire hazards); hydrologyCouncil Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 68, Packet Page 400 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -15- October 2023
water quality (conflicts with plans); transportation (conflict with CEQA Guidelines-VMT); tribal cultural resources; and utilities (infrastructure); wildfire. Thus, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183, no further environmental analysis is required.

E. Checklist and Discussion

1. Aesthetics
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant General
Plan Mitigation
Measures or Other
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code section 21099,
would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
DEIR pages 2-4,
2-6
No No None applicable to
proposed project
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
DEIR pages 2-5
to 2-7
No No
General Plan, Urban
Design Element Policy
h.13
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point.) If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
DEIR pages 2-4
to 2-5, 2-7
No No
Downtown Specific Plan
Standard S.3.1 (building
heights), Lighthouse
Specific Plan Standards
S.3.1 and S.3.2 (building
heights), North Fremont
Specific Plan Standards
S.3.1 and S.3.2 (building
heights)
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
DEIR pages 2-5,
2-8 to 2-9
No No
General Plan, Urban
Design Element Policy
f.9, Downtown
Specific Plan
Standards S.6.1-S.6-9
(lighting), Lighthouse
Specific Plan
Standards S.6.1-S.6-9
(lighting), North
Fremont Specific Plan
Standard S.5.8
(lighting)
a) Scenic Views. The city of Monterey consists of approximately 10 square miles of coastal lands and forested hills. Much of the City is urbanized; however, its coastline and wooded ridges are devoted primarily to open space and recreational uses. Monterey’s image is that of a small-scale residential community next to Monterey Bay, framed by a forested hill backdrop. The Monterey region is well known for its scenic visual character provided by the coastline and central ridge of wooded hills. The City’s coastal areas provide expansive views of the Pacific Ocean (Monterey Bay).

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 69, Packet Page 401 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -16- October 2023
The City’s General Plan identifies Monterey Bay as the City’s most significant natural resource and also identifies the pine- and oak-covered ridges and foothills as important visual elements, although some are outside the City. The General Plan also indicates that greenbelts create a beautiful setting and preserve a number of natural resources including Monterey pine trees, as well as form the backdrop of the City and provide a visual break from urban development. In the context of the Downtown, numerous historic resources constitute scenic vistas and are an important element to tourism and civic pride.

The General Plan (Map 2) identifies “Special Places,” which are considered to have significant visual resources. The commercial and industrial areas in which future cannabis businesses could locate are not within an area designated on this map. The areas not part of a scenic view of the Monterey Bay or skyline forest.

The General Plan EIR indicatesthat significant impacts would occur if development or activities would significantly block or impair views of scenic resources from public viewing locations, including scenic highways. However, the EIR indicates that commercial development would continue to occur in the City’s existing commercial areas including Cannery Row, Lighthouse Avenue, Downtown, East Downtown, North Fremont, and Del Monte Avenue, many of which are locations in which cannabis businesses could be allowed. The EIR concluded that new development is not likely to result in significant removal or alteration of existing natural features and resources that give the City its dominant aesthetic quality.

The EIR further found that intensification of development within already developed areas could result in an incremental loss of views to the Monterey Bay, the forested hillsides that form the backdrop to the City, or to other aesthetically valuable features within or adjacent to the City. This impact could be significant for individual projects that block such views, especially were development intensification facilitated by increases in building height, footprint, or mass. However, the EIR concluded that General Plan policies that address the protection of existing scenic vistas would guide and condition new future development, and with implementation of these policies, potential impacts to scenic views resulting from future development would be less than significant. Many of these policies relate to coastal views, and none of the allowed areas for new cannabis retail businesses are located in the coastal zone.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of specified cannabis businesses, and cannabis retail businesses are limited to five within four specified Cannabis Business Overlay zone districts. Cannabis testing laboratories would continue to be permitted within the existing I-R zone district as currently permitted. Future uses permitted pursuant to the proposed project would be located in existing developed commercial areas, and in existing developed industrial-research park areas in the case of cannabis testing laboratory businesses. It is expected that cannabis business uses permitted pursuant to the proposed regulations would be located within existing buildings, and construction associated with future businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would primarily be interior and would not affect scenic views. Furthermore, none of the proposed Cannabis Business Overlay zone districts, as shown on Figure 2, are within areas of mapped Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 70, Packet Page 402 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -17- October 2023
or observed scenic views. Thus, potential businesses permitted in the future would not have an adverse effect on a scenic view. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
b) Scenic Resources. As identified in the City’s General Plan, all major roads leading to Monterey are scenic highways. Highway 1, south of the city from Highway 68 to the Carmel River is a Statedesignated scenic highway. State Highway 68 (Monterey Salinas Highway) from Highway 1 to the Salinas River is a State- and County-designated scenic highway. In addition, Highway 68 along the western boundary of the City is identified as a “Proposed Scenic Road” in the City’s General Plan.

The General Plan EIR indicates that significant impacts on aesthetic quality could result if development or activities would substantially degrade scenic resources including open space, forested areas, surface water bodies, coastal beaches and dunes, or the Monterey Bay, or significant block or impair views of scenic resources from public viewing locations, including scenic highways.

However, the General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan Update did not propose significant development in locations that could affect viewsheds as seen from scenic highways and corridors or that has the potential to degrade visual quality along the margins of the highways and corridors. The EIR also indicates that the Urban Design Element of the General Plan contains a variety of policies that address design and development issues that affect scenic entrances to the City and visual quality within scenic highway corridors. While the EIR indicated that new development has the potential to incrementally affect the quality of scenic resources within the viewshed of Highways 1 and 68, both of which are State-designated scenic highways, the EIR concluded that much of the anticipated new development would be within developed areas, and significant impacts to scenic resources within a scenic highway corridor would not be expected. The EIR also indicated that new development would be conditioned to ensure that it is consistent with the design, mass, and scale of the existing urban form within scenic corridors and does not result in the loss or significant alteration of important natural features that contribute to the City’s significant visual quality. General Plan Urban Design Policy h.13 requires screening of industrial elements to prevent impacts to scenic highways.

As indicated above, the proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of specified cannabis businesses, and cannabis retail businesses are limited to a total of five within four specified Cannabis Business Overlay zone districts. Cannabis testing laboratories would continue to be permitted within the existing I-R zone district as currently permitted. Future uses permitted pursuant to the proposed project would be located in existing developed commercial areas, and in existing developed industrial-research park areas in the case of cannabis testing businesses. It is expected that cannabis business uses permitted pursuant to the proposed regulations would be located within existing buildings.

None of the locations identified for cannabis retail businesses are located in areas visible from designated State scenic highways or other scenic view areas discussed above. Some areas designated for industrial uses in which cannabis testing laboratory businesses would continue to be allowed are adjacent to Highway 68. However, the areas potentially visible from Highway 68 are primarily Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 71, Packet Page 403 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -18- October 2023
developed. Furthermore, existing General Plan Urban Design Policy h.13 requires screening of industrial development to protect views from scenic highways, the implementation of which would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, potential businesses permitted in the future would not have an adverse effect on a scenic highway or scenic resource with uniformly applied development standards imposed, if needed, as part of the project review process.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. c) Visual Character. The General Plan EIR indicated that significant impacts on aesthetic quality could result if future development substantially change the City’s existing small-town, aesthetic character through inappropriate design or scale or incompatibility with surrounding uses could also create adverse effects. However, the EIR found that commercial and industrial development would continue to occur in the City’s existing developed areas and concluded that development would not result in significant removal or alteration of existing natural features and resources that give the City its dominant aesthetic quality.

Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines approved in December 2019 changed some of the recommended questions on the Environmental Checklist. The revisions qualify the inquiry into potential degradation of existing visual character or the quality of public views of the site depending on whether the project is located in an urbanized or non-urbanized area. The city of Monterey is an “urbanized area” under the definition of the term in CEQA Guidelines section 15387. Therefore, per the amended Environmental Checklist question, the City need not specifically consider existing visual character or the quality of the existing views and the project’s potential effect on them, but whether or not the project conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

There are no known City regulations governing scenic quality that are applicable to the proposed project and subsequent cannabis businesses permitted under the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. In addition, future development permitted under the proposed project would be subject to development regulations of underlying zone districts, including design standards included in the Downtown, Lighthouse, and North Fremont Specific Plans, which would be considered uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in aesthetic impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or area, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. d) Light and Glare. The General Plan EIR concluded that future development may introduce lighting and other reflective materials, but since most new development would be located within developed areas and concentrated within existing commercial areas where existing sources of light and glare are highest, new sources of light and glare would add only incrementally to existing sources. Further, the EIR indicated that few if any new lighting-intensive commercial uses are anticipated. Although, the EIR concluded that significant light and glare impacts are not anticipated, it was noted that review of individual projects for their light and glare effects would be required through the City’s Development Review and Architectural Review processes and performance standards contained in Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 72, Packet Page 404 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -19- October 2023
the Zoning Ordinance. The EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and regulations, impacts related to increased light and glare would be less than significant.

As indicated above, the proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the type and location of specified cannabis businesses, the location of which would be within existing developed areas as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, as explained in Section III.B, future development that could occur as a result of the proposed project also would likely be within existing buildings with established exterior lighting. Furthermore, future development permitted under the proposed project would be subject to development regulations of underlying zone districts, including lighting standards for new development included in the Downtown, Lighthouse, and North Fremont Specific Plans, which would be considered uniformly applied development standards. Thus, potential businesses permitted in the future would not result in significant impacts related to light and glare with uniformly applied development standards imposed, if needed, as part of the project review process. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

2. Agriculture and Forest
Resources1
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant General
Plan Mitigation
Measures or Other
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
DEIR Appendix
A
No No None
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
DEIR Appendix
A
No No None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
Not Addressed Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
1 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement Methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 73, Packet Page 405 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -20- October 2023

2. Agriculture and Forest
Resources1
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant General
Plan Mitigation
Measures or Other
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
Not Addressed Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
DEIR Appendix
A
No No None
a–b, e) Agricultural Resources. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) prepared for the General Plan EIR contained an environmental checklist form that determined which environmental factors could be potentially impacted by implementation of the General Plan. The NOP, which is included Appendix A of the Draft EIR, determined that implementation of the General Plan would have no impact to agricultural resources because there are no agricultural resources within the General Plan Study Area.

There are no agricultural lands or operations or potential for future agricultural activities within the City. There are no mapped prime or other agricultural lands within the City as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency nor are there properties designated for agricultural uses in the City’s General Plan or zoning ordinance.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the type and location of specified cannabis businesses, the location of which would be within existing developed areas.

Potential cannabis businesses permitted in the future would not have an adverse effect on agricultural resources because, as indicated in Appendix A of the General Plan EIR, none exist within the city. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of agricultural lands or lead to conversion of agricultural lands as none exist in the city, and the project would result in no impact to farmland or agricultural lands or agricultural operations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 74, Packet Page 406 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -21- October 2023
c–e) Forest Resources. Forest resources were not analyzed under the City’s General Plan EIR because at the time the EIR was prepared forest resources were not included as an environmental factor to be assessed under the CEQA Guidelines at the time the EIR was prepared. However, the city is primarily an urbanized environment and does not have any forest lands designated for Timber Production in the General Plan or zoned for Timberland Production.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 75, Packet Page 407 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -22- October 2023

3. Air Quality2
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
DEIR page 2-16
to 2-17 No No None
a) Conflicts with AQMP. The General Plan EIR reported that in 1991, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), formerly the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, adopted the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Monterey Bay Region in response to the California Clean Air Act of 1988, which established specific planning requirements to meet the ozone standards, and which included subsequent updates. The California Clean Air Act requires that AQMPs be updated every three years. The MBARD has updated the AQMP seven times. The most recent update, the 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP), was adopted in 2017. The 2016 AQMP relies on a multilevel partnership of federal, state, regional, and local governmental agencies. The 2016 AQMP documents the MBARD’s progress toward attaining the state 8-hour ozone standard, which is more stringent than the state 1-hour ozone standard. The 2016 AQMP builds on information developed in past AQMPs and updates the 2012 AQMP. The primary elements from the 2012 AQMP that were updated in the 2016 revision include the air quality trends analysis, emission inventory, and mobile source programs (Monterey Bay Air Resources District 2017).

A project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of MBARD’s AQMP if it is inconsistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. According to the District’s CEQA Guidelines, population forecasts adopted by Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) are used to forecast population-related emissions and to develop basin-wide emission controls on stationary sources.

Projects that are consistent with AMBAG’s regional forecasts have been accommodated in the AQMP and would be considered consistent with the AQMP. The General Plan EIR concluded that if the population potentially resulting from implementing the General Plan Update would not exceed 33,148 for the year 2020, which was the forecast year available when the EIR was prepared, development resulting from the General Plan Update would not conflict with the AQMP, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of specified cannabis businesses, and cannabis retail businesses are limited to a total of five in four designated commercial areas. Future uses permitted pursuant to the proposed project would be located in developed areas and likely within existing buildings, and would represent a change in a commercial or industrial business use. The allowed uses would not result in new residential uses or population, and thus, would not be uses that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. It is also noted that the City’s existing population of 26,845 is less than the population identified in the EIR that could result in potential conflicts with the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts related to Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 76, Packet Page 408 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -23- October 2023
forest resources than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. b) Criteria Pollutant Emissions. To protect public health, both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) established ambient air quality standards (AAQS) that are the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health and welfare. Criteria pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulates (PM10), fine particulates (PM2.5), and lead. In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibilityreducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants. An area is designated as “in attainment” when it is in compliance with the federal and/or state standards.

CARB designates a status for regional air basins as being in attainment or nonattainment with State air quality standards. The EPA provides the designation for National standards. Designations are made by pollutant according to the following categories:

Attainment – Air quality in the area meets the standard.

Nonattainment – Air quality in the area fails to meet the applicable standard.

Unclassified – Insufficient data to designate area, or designations have yet to be made.

Attainment/Unclassified - An EPA designation which, in terms of planning implications, is essentially the same as Attainment.

The project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is comprised of Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey counties. The NCCAB is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District3(MBARD). The NCCAB is in attainment or unclassified status for federal AAQS and no national attainment plans apply to the region. The NCCAB is a nonattainment transitional area for the California AAQS for ozone, non-attainment for inhalable particulate matter (PM10) and is an attainment area for other standards, except it is unclassified for hydrogen sulfide (California Air Resources Board 2023).

The General Plan EIR concluded that future development as a result of the General Plan Update would result in increased long-term, cumulative air emissions and that impacts are determined on the basis of a project’s consistency with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. Because the General Plan Update was found to be consistent with the AQMP, no significant impact related to criteria pollutant emissions was identified in the EIR. The EIR did conclude that development resulting from the General Plan Update could result in a potentially significant impact related to exposure to localized emissions of carbon monoxide due to degradation of the level of service at a number of intersections and road segments to levels at which local carbon monoxide emissions that could exceed acceptable standards. However, implementation of General Plan policies targeted at maximizing the efficiency of the transportation network such that level of service standards are met, as well as policies that require review of air quality impacts resulting from proximity of residential, commercial and industrial development as part of the City's development review process, would reduce this effect to a less than significant level.
3 Formerly the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 77, Packet Page 409 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -24- October 2023
The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of specified cannabis business, and the number of cannabis retail businesses to five. Future uses permitted pursuant to the proposed project would be located in existing developed commercial or industrial areas and likely within commercial or industrial buildings of sizes that are below screening levels that would indicate a potentially significant impact as set forth in the MBARD’s CEQA Guidelines (2008).

Furthermore, Conservation Element Policy c.2 requires consideration of air quality impacts resulting from proximity of residential, commercial and industrial development as part of the City's development and CEQA review process, which would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, the project would not result in direct or indirect emissions of any criteria air pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment under applicable state regulations with uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of the development review process, if needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. c) Sensitive Receptors. For CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor is defined as any residence, including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters; education resources such as preschools and kindergarten through grade twelve (k-12) schools; daycare centers; and health care facilities such as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes (Monterey Bay Air Resources District, February 2008).

The General Plan EIR found that the primary mobile source pollutant of local concern to sensitive receptors is CO, and localized concentrations of CO are a direct function of vehicle idling time and thus, traffic flow conditions. The EIR concluded that future development could result in potentially significant impact related to CO emissions if intersection levels of service declined. However, with implementation of General Plan policies to improve roadway efficiency, including physical improvements and circulation management actions, the EIR concluded that the impact would be less than significant.

Due to limits of location of cannabis retail business in commercial areas and cannabis testing businesses in industrial areas, future businesses would not be located in residential areas. The proposed regulations also prohibit locating a cannabis business within a 600-foot radius of a property line of a school, day care center, or youth center that is in existence at the time of submission of a completed initial application for a commercial cannabis permit. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 78, Packet Page 410 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -25- October 2023
evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
d) Odors. According to the MBARD CEQA Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include landfills, agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, refineries, and landfills. As indicated the General Plan EIR and the Land Use Element of the General Plan Update, it is not anticipated that commercial or industrial uses within the city will be of a character that generate objectionable odors. Therefore, the EIR concluded that future development would result in a less than significant impact related as a result of implementation of the General Plan.

Sec. 7-7.18 of the proposed ordinance includes operational requirements for retail and testing laboratory cannabis businesses. Prior to operation, future cannabis businesses would require a zoning clearance consistency review that ensure that specific design requirements. Subsection 9 requires that all cannabis businesses provide an air treatment system that ensures off-site odors will not result from its operations. This requirement at a minimum means that the facility shall be designed to provide sufficient odor-absorbing ventilation and exhaust systems so that any odor generated inside the location is not detected on adjacent properties or public rights-of-way, or within any other unit located within the same building as the cannabis business if the cannabis business occupies only a portion of a building.

The proposed ordinance also would allow issuance of up to two temporary cannabis event permits per calendar year for events to be held at the Monterey Fairgrounds, which are located within city.

Currently, two such events are held at the Fairgrounds; historically, the City has issued permits for two annual temporary events held at the (California Roots Festival and Rebels and Renegades Music Festival). Thus, it would be expected that either these two annual events would continue or new events would replace the existing events, but in either case there would be no net increase in annual special temporary events over what currently occurs.

The consumption of cannabis at these temporary events may produce odors that some people might find objectionable. If such odors were to reach the borders of the Fairgrounds to the nearest neighborhood, the odors would not be substantially different or worse than other odors that may be emitted from other Fairgrounds events, such as events with animals and contained animal waste. As such, the odors would not rise to the level of objectional odors associated with odor complaints that typically arise from the uses identified above by the MBARD and evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 79, Packet Page 411 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -26- October 2023
Further, the odors also would be of limited extent and duration during the hours of the two annual events, and would be accordingly intermittent and temporary.

Thus, the project and future cannabis businesses permitted under the project would not result in creation of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

4. Biological Resources
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant General
Plan Mitigation
Measures or Other
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
DEIR pages 2-28
and 2-35 No No
General Plan
Conservation
Element Policies d.3,
d.4 and d.5
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
DEIR pages 2-28
and 2-35 to
2-36
No No
General Plan
Conservation
Element Policies d.3,
d.4 and d.5
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
DEIR page 2-28
and 2-36 No No
General Plan
Conservation
Element Policies d.3,
d.4 and d.5
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
DEIR pages 2-36
to 2-37 No No
General Plan
Conservation
Element Policies d.3,
d.4 and d.5
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological DEIR page 2-37 No No
General Plan Urban
Design element
Policy g.5 and
Conservation
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 80, Packet Page 412 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -27- October 2023

The General Plan EIR indicates that intensification of development within developed areas have a low likelihood of adversely impacting special status species. The EIR indicates that the majority of the new development potential is within areas that are already developed; intensification of use in four mixeduse neighborhoods and infill development on existing small vacant lots scattered throughout the city comprises most of the development potential. The EIR concluded that new development located in these areas is not likely to have significant impacts on biological resources, as these areas do not generally contain sensitive biotic resources or provide habitat for special status species or more common plant or animal species, although, there is some potential that vacant infill parcels located in less intensely developed portions of the City (i.e. forested hillsides) may have the potential to contain protected trees, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and/or special status species.

The EIR also indicates that the 138-acre Fort Ord annexation area has a higher likelihood to support habitat for special status species, of which approximately 113 acres are designated for industrial use with the remainder designated as open space. This area has a significantly higher likelihood of containing sensitive or protected biological resources when compared to the infill development and development intensification areas identified in the General Plan Update. However, there are review processes in place that would ensure development in that area is consistent with the Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan that would reduce potential impacts in this area.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 81, Packet Page 413 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -28- October 2023
The EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update and resulting future development could result in a potentially significant impact on special status species. No mitigation measures were recommended, however, the EIR concluded that the General Plan Update includes numerous policies that would preserve, protect and enhance special status species habitat within the plan area, including Policies a.2, b.2, b.3, c.1, c.2, c.3, d.1, d.4, d.5, d.7, e.1, and e.2 included in the Open Space Element, Policies a.1, a.7, a.8, b.1, b.3, b.5, c.1, d.1, d.3, g.2, g.3, g.5, and h.1 in the Urban Design Element, and Policies b.1, d.1, d.2, d.3, d.4, d.5, and d.6 in the Conservation Element, which would mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level. In addition, Conservation Element Policies d.3 through d.6 specifically address protection of sensitive biotic resources, which would include special status species. Pursuant to these policies, biotic reports are required for projects proposed in areas of moderate to high biological resource value. Implementation of these policies as part of future development review would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard.

Future projects allowed by the proposed ordinance would be located in developed areas that do not support special status species and are not expected to result in ground-disturbing activities that would have the potential to disturb special species habitat. Furthermore, although very unlikely, If new construction were proposed in biologically sensitive areas, i.e. in the Fort Ord area, development would be subject to the General Plan polices to require preparation of biotic reports that would review potential impacts at a project level at the time a project is proposed, which would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, potential cannabis businesses permitted in the future as a result of the proposed cannabis business regulations would not result in an adverse effect on a special-status species with uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of the design review process, if needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
b-c) Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, and Other Sensitive Habitats. Sensitive habitats include riparian habitat, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species, areas of high biological diversity, areas supporting rare or special-status wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted habitat types.

Other habitat types considered sensitive include those listed on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB’s) working list of high priority and rare natural communities (i.e., those habitats that are rare or endangered within the borders of California), critical habitat defined in the federal Endangered Species Act, and as “environmentally sensitive habitat areas defined in the Coastal Act or “essential fish habitat” under the MagnusonCouncil Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 82, Packet Page 414 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -29- October 2023
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or protected under the Marine Life Protection Act.

The General Plan EIR notes that the plan area contains documented riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities such as Monterey pine forest, oak woodland, grasslands, chaparral, coastal forest dunes, coastal dune scrub, as well as several natural marine habitats. However, the EIR concludes areas for which infill and intensification development is anticipated have a low likelihood of supporting riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, but development in the Fort Ord area could result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive habitat areas. The EIR also notes that while the General Plan area contains wetlands, potential impacts to those wetlands would only likely occur on vacant parcels near seasonal streams or ponds. The EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan would have a potentially significant impact on riparian habitat, other native sensitive communities, and federally protected wetlands. No mitigation measures were prescribed to reduce these impacts; however, the EIR indicates that the General Plan Update includes policies to preserve, protect and enhance riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. These include Open Space Element Policies a.2, b.2, b.3, c.1, c.2, c.3, d.1, d.4, d.5, d.7, e.1, and e.2, Urban Design Element Policies a.1, a.7, a.8, b.1, b.3, b.5, c.1, d.1, d.3, g.2, g.3, g.5, and h.1, and Conservation Element Policies b.1, d.1, d.2, d.3, d.4, d.5, and d.6. The EIR also notes that if a wetland is determined to be on a site proposed for development, a project proponent would be required to consult with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and obtain appropriate permits.

The EIR concludes that implementation of these policies would reduce impacts on riparian habitat. other sensitive natural communities, and wetlandsto a less than significant level. As noted previously, Conservation Element Policies d.3 through d.6 specifically address protection of sensitive biotic resources that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of these policies as part of future development review would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits cannabis retail businesses to five within four specified Cannabis Business Overlay zone districts that are located within developed commercial areas. Cannabis testing laboratory businesses also would be permitted within the existing I-R zone district as currently permitted. Some I-R zones are within the Fort Ord area, but these areas are primarily developed. There are no coastal areas included within the proposed overlay zones. Future uses permitted pursuant to the proposed project would be located in existing developed commercial and industrial areas. It is expected that cannabis business uses permitted pursuant to the proposed regulations would be located within existing buildings.

Future projects allowed by the proposed ordinance would be located in developed areas that do not support riparian, wetland or other sensitive habitats and are not expected to result in grounddisturbing activities that would have the potential to disturb special species habitat. Furthermore, although very unlikely, If new construction were proposed in biologically sensitive areas, i.e., the Fort Ord area, development would be subject to the General Plan polices to require preparation of biotic reports that would review potential impacts at a project level as part of development review at the time a project is proposed, which would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, potential businesses permitted in the future would not have an adverse Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 83, Packet Page 415 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -30- October 2023
effect on a riparian habitat, other sensitive communities, or wetlands with uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of the design review process, if needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. d) Wildlife Movement. The General Plan EIR indicates that the plan area contains habitat that provides for movement for various species of wildlife, most notably in relatively undisturbed Monterey pine forest, oak woodlands, chaparral, and riparian areas. However, the EIR concludes that new and infill development on small vacant parcels likely has a low probability of adversely affecting wildlife movement habitat, but that the Fort Ord annexation area has a higher likelihood of containing movement habitat for wildlife. New development in this area may result in disturbance to these movement habitats, causing fragmentation or elimination of wildlife movement corridors.

The EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan and future development would have a potentially significant impact on wildlife movement due to potential development in the Fort Ord area. No mitigation measures were prescribed to reduce this impact; however, the EIR explains that the General Plan includes within its Open Space, Urban Design, and Conservation Elements to policies to preserve and protect habitat movement within the city’s sensitive habitat areas. These include Open Space Policies a.2, b.2, b.3, c.1, c.2, c.3, d.1, d.4, d.5, d.7, e.1, and e.2, Urban Design Element Policies a.1, a.7, a.8, b.1, b.3, b.5, c.1, d.1, d.3, g.2, g.3, g.5, and h.1, and Conservation Element Policies b.1, d.1, d.2, d.3, d.4, d.5, and d.6. The EIR concludes that implementation of these policies would reduce impacts on habitat movement to a less than significant level. Implementation of these policies as part of future development review would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 84, Packet Page 416 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -31- October 2023
e) Conflicts with Local Plans. Chapter 37 (Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance) of the Monterey City Code regulates protection of trees; this ordinance contains regulations that are intended to assure preservation of trees and replacement of trees when removal is unavoidable. The regulations define “protected tree” as trees located on a vacant private parcel that are more than two inches in diameter when measured at a point four feet six inches above the tree’s natural grade and trees located on a private, developed parcel that are more than six inches when measured at a point four feet six inches above the tree’s natural grade. The General Plan EIR indicates that all public or private construction projects requiring a building permit must comply with the tree protection regulations. The EIR concluded that construction could result in impacts to trees, but compliance with the City’s tree regulations, as well as the General Plan Urban Design Element Policy g.5 and Conservation Element Policy d.5 that require protection of significant trees, impacts would ensure that impacts to trees are less than significant. These policies would require the protection of significant trees in urban and historic contexts and required new development to conform with the Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance. Implementation of these policies regulations as part of future development review would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standards.

Thus, potential cannabis businesses and construction permitted in the future would not have a significant impact related to the conflict with local plans protecting biological resources with uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of the design review process, if needed.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. f) Conflicts with Habitat Conservation and Natural Community Plans. The General Plan EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan would not be inconsistent with appliable conservation plans such as the Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The EIR also notes that while the oceanic portion of the plan area is federally protected as a national marine sanctuary, which is subject to conservation plans, this portion would not be impacted by the General Plan Update.

Therefore, the EIR concluded implementation of the General Plan and resulting future development Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 85, Packet Page 417 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -32- October 2023
would result in a less-than-significant impact related to potential conflict with habitat conservation plans, and no mitigation measures were required.

Future uses permitted pursuant to the proposed project would be located in existing developed commercial areas, and in existing developed industrial-research park areas in the case of cannabis testing businesses. As explained above under impacts a-c), future projects allowed by the proposed ordinance are not expected to result in ground-disturbing activities that would have the potential to impact sensitive habitat to would lead to conflicts with adopted plans. Furthermore, although very unlikely, if new construction were proposed in biologically sensitive areas, i.e. the Fort Ord area, development would be subject to the General Plan polices to require preparation of biotic reports that would review potential impacts at a project level as part of development review at the time a project is proposed and would be subject to conditions in the HMP, which would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standards. Thus, future projects allowed by the proposed ordinance that may be located in the Fort Ord annexation subject to a habitat conservation plan protecting biological resources would not result in conflicts with the plan and would not result in a significant impact related to the conflict with habitat conservation plans protecting biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

5. Cultural Resources
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant General
Plan Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in section
15064.5?
DEIR pages 2-42
to 2-46
No No
General Plan
Historic
Preservation
Element Policies
a.1 through a.3,
Urban Design
Element Policies
e.1 through e.3
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to section
15064.5?
DEIR pages 2-42
to 2-46 No No
General Plan
Mitigation
Measure #1 that
is included in
General Plan
Historic
Preservation
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 86, Packet Page 418 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -33- October 2023

5. Cultural Resources
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant General
Plan Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
Element Policy
a.4
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
DEIR pages 2-
45, 2-46 No No
General Plan
Mitigation
Measure #1 that
is included in
General Plan
Historic
Preservation
Element Policy
a.4
a) Historical Resources. As described in the City’s General Plan, the city of Monterey is one of the most historic cities in the United States, and preservation of historic resources has long been a concern of Monterey citizens. Over the past three centuries, the City has served, at various times, as a Spanish mission, a center of government, a major commercial port, and a cultural center. The city owns and maintains 12 historic buildings built between the 1840s to 1937. The City has a Historic Preservation Ordinance that includes two historic zone districts (H-1 and H-2) that can be applied to properties that meet specified National Register or California Register criteria.

The General Plan EIR concluded that development in accordance with the General Plan Update has the potential to affect historic resources either through direct impacts to resources or to their surroundings, resulting in potentially significant impacts. Significant impacts would occur if historic structures are removed or altered, or the unique character of the setting in which historic resources is located is substantially altered. However, the EIR indicates that the General Plan Update Historic Preservation Element contains a range of policies and programs for the protection of historic resources within the city. Policies a.1 through a.3 of the element promote maintenance of a preservation program. Restoration and protection of historic buildings are also promoted through General Plan Update Urban Design Element Policies e.1 through e.3, which seek to protect and enhance the setting of historic buildings, address consistency of design of new development with existing historic buildings, and maintain existing and develop new paths of history. The EIR concluded that new development that is consistent with these policies would reduce impacts on historic resources to a less-than-significant level.

Furthermore, any alteration to a historic resource would be subject to review and design to protect historical features of the structure. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
b-c) Archaeological Resources and Human Remains. As described in the City’s General Plan EIR, the plan area is within the contact-period lands of at least two aboriginal tribal groups. These groups are known ethnographically as Costanoan and Esselen, which are the names given to their language or language family. Over time, archeological investigations within the plan area have resulted in the recording of approximately 29 prehistoric archeological sites. Figure 8 of the General Plan Draft EIR, Archaeological Sensitivity Map, shows locations where the probability of uncovering prehistoric archaeological resources is considered to be moderate to high.

The General Plan EIR concludes that new development would involve construction on the limited number of remaining vacant parcels and the intensification of development in existing developed areas, especially existing commercial areas, which would have the potential to damage or alter known or unknown prehistoric archaeological sites, a potentially significant impact. Almost all of the city is located in archaeologically sensitive areas as identified on Figure 8 in the General Plan EIR. As described in the EIR, construction activities are likely to involve alteration of the ground surface through trenching, grading, excavations for utility infrastructure and foundations. The EIR found that the General Plan Update does not include specific policies to address protection of archaeological resources during these activities, and, therefore, proposed Mitigation Measure #1. This mitigation measure requires that a policy be added to the General Plan that requires archaeological studies be prepared for projects proposed in areas with high probability to containing archaeological resources, which would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Based on the adopted MMRP, this mitigation measure has been incorporated into the General Plan as Historic Preservation Element Policy a.4, which requires review and mitigation of archaeological impacts as part of the CEQA process for future development projects located in archaeologically sensitive areas.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of specified cannabis business to four overlay zone districts, all of which are located within a high archaeological sensitivity area (asidentified in the General Plan Update DEIR Figure 8 Archaeological Sensitivity Map, except for the North Fremont overlay district. Disturbance of an archaeological resource is considered a potentially significant impact. However, future cannabis businesses resulting from the proposed Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 88, Packet Page 420 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -35- October 2023
ordnance are not anticipated to lead to projects involving ground-disturbing construction activities.

Given the limited commercial areas in which cannabis retail businesses would be allowed to operate, it is assumed that the four storefront retail businesses and one non-storefront business would occupy existing buildings within the specified overlay districts and that no new structures would be constructed as these areas are already developed. Thus, future projects allowed by the proposed ordinance are not expected to result in ground-disturbing activities that would have the potential to uncover or disturb archaeological resources or human remains.

If new construction were proposed in archaeologically sensitive areas, development would be subject to the General Plan Historic Preservation Policy a.4 as required by the EIR mitigation, which requires review of potential archaeological impacts as part of the CEQA process for future development projects located in archaeologically sensitive areas. This requirement would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Thus, potential businesses permitted in the future would not have an adverse effect on archaeological resources or human remains because future development under the proposed ordinance would not result in ground disturbing construction activities or if so, would be subject to the General Plan policy requiring review and mitigation of impacts, which would be considered a uniformly applied development standard.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, with application of uniformly applied development standards, if needed, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

6. Energy
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
DEIR pages 2-
140 to 2-141
and 3-6 to 3-7
No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Not Addressed Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
a) Energy Consumption. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) maintains the electrical network and provides natural gas service to the City. The City of Monterey is part of the Central Coast Community Energy (3CE), formerly Monterey Bay Community Power electricity service, a regional Community Choice Energy project. 3CE was formed to provide locally controlled, carbon free electricity to residents and businesses in Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties and supplies electricity generated from hydropower, solar and wind, which are renewable resources.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 89, Packet Page 421 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -36- October 2023
The General Plan EIR found that new development within the City would increase the demand for electric and gas service from PG&E, and concluded new development would not be of a scale or intensity that would require excessive use of energy. With the exception of new development in the Fort Ord annexation area, much of the new development under the General Plan Update would occur in existing developed areas where electric and gas infrastructure already exists. Therefore, the need for installation of significant new energy supply infrastructure whose construction could have substantial impacts is likely to be minimal. The EIR also indicates that the City’s Utility Users Tax is assessed against all commercial, industrial and residential users of water, telephone, gas, and electric service within the City of Monterey, and the tax is used to support expansion or extension of utilities as required. The EIR concluded that future development as a result of the General Plan Update would not result in excessive or substantial volume of energy. The EIR also concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in significant irreversible environmental effects, although commitments of non-renewable resources would occur with future development, especially petroleum based products and fuels.

The EIR also indicates that the Conservation Element includes several energy-related policies and programs. In general, it is the City’s intent to encourage effective and efficient use of energy. A key General Plan Update focus is on encouraging mixed-use commercial and residential development that could result in a reduction in vehicle miles and vehicle trips, thereby creating significant reduction in fuel consumption. Enhancement of public transit services to and through mixed-use commercial areas will promote use of alternative transportation, which further reduces vehicle use.

Conservation Element Energy Policy e.1 encourages alternative energy forms to supply energy to public and private buildings, Policy e.2 calls for educating the public about energy conservation, and Policy e.3 encourages collaboration between the City and a range of agencies, utilities, community groups, etc., to implement energy conservation and renewable energy development programs.

Additionally, the General Plan includes policies to promote energy conservation. Additionally, Conservation Element Policy j.1 calls for Implementation of state energy and green building and conservation standards. Furthermore, the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) provides guidance to increase energy independence, reduce spending on gas, electricity, and water, and improve air quality from non-City operations (City of Monterey 2016).

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of specified cannabis businessto four overlay zone districts. Given the limited commercial areas in which cannabis retail businesses would be allowed to operate, it is assumed that the four storefront retail businesses and one non-storefront business would occupy existing buildings within the specified overlay districts and that no new structures would be constructed as these areas are already developed and would be located within existing buildings; construction associated with future businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would primarily involve interior tenant improvements.

Operations associated with future cannabis businesses are not anticipated to require substantially more energy as compared to the currently allowed commercial businesses within those existing buildings. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance also includes requirements for permit applications to implement measures that reduce the business’s carbon footprint which make include the provision Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 90, Packet Page 422 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -37- October 2023
of energy efficient building components. Therefore, it can be reasonably be concluded that energy consumption associated with future cannabis businesses would be equal to or less than businesses that would otherwise occupy the existing buildings.

For these reasons, cannabis businesses permitted in the future as a result of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources as a result of construction or operation. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

b) Conflicts with Plans. In March 2016, the City adopted CAP, which serves as a strategic tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and ensure efficient use of the City’s resources, including energy resources. The CAP provides guidance to increase energy independence, reduce spending on gas, electricity, and water, and improve air quality from non-City operations (City of Monterey 2016).

AMBAG released the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable City of Monterey Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) in June 2022 to address GHG emissions regionally. The 2045 MTP/SCS is built on a set of integrated policies, strategies and investments to maintain and improve the region-wide transportation system to meet the diverse needs of the region through 2045.

Potential conflicts with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency were not analyzed under the General Plan EIR, as that subject was not required to be discussed as a standalone topic at that time. However, as discussed above, construction and operation of the future cannabis businesses would not result in excessive energy consumption due to limitations of the number and location of future businesses. Thus, the proposed project conflict would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a state or local plan for renewable energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

7. Geology and Soils
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

DEIR pages 2-53
to 2-55 No No
General Plan
Safety Element
policies a.1 –

1.7, b.1 – b.6
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
DEIR pages 2-53
to 2-55 No No
General Plan
Safety Element
policies a.1 –

1.7, b.1 – b.6
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 91, Packet Page 423 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -38- October 2023

7. Geology and Soils
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? DEIR pages 2-53
to 2-55 No No
General Plan
Safety Element
policies a.1 –

1.7, b.1 – b.6
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
DEIR pages 2-53
to 2-55 No No
General Plan
Safety Element
policies a.1 –

1.7, b.1 – b.6
iv) Landslides? DEIR pages 2-54
to 2-55 No No
General Plan
Safety Element
policies a.1 –

1.7, b.1 – b.6
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? DEIR page 2-55 No No None
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
DEIR pages 2-54
to 2-55 No No
General Plan
Safety Element
policies a.1 –

1.7, b.1 – b.6
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
DEIR page 2-55 No No None
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
DEIR Appendix
A
NO No None
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
DEIR page 2-45 No No None
a, c) Fault Rupture and Seismic and Geologic Hazards. The city is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as mapped by the State Geologist. The nearest known active or potentially active fault is the Navy Fault Zone, which is located within the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault Zone Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 92, Packet Page 424 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -39- October 2023
and located approximately 1 mile northeast from the City’s downtown area. Earthquakes on any of the local faults or on other faults located in the vicinity or region could produce significant seismic shaking at the proposed project. However, as identified in the City General Plan EIR there are no known active faults, faults on which movement has occurred within the last 11,000 years, within the City and no Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones.

The General Plan EIR found that with increased development as a result of the General Plan Update, the number of people and buildings exposed to all forms of seismic hazards would increase. Increased exposure to seismic shaking is considered the most significant hazard in the city. Hazards from liquefaction, differential settlement, and slope failure are anticipated to be much less widespread as the surface and subsurface conditions that give rise to these hazards during a seismic shaking event is geographically limited. The EIR indicates that unreinforced masonry buildings are particularly susceptible to damage from ground shaking, and that failure of such structures is a source of threat to public safety from earthquake events. Implementation of the General Plan could result in a greater number of people will be exposed to geologic hazards. As noted in the EIR, seismic induced ground failure could occur in limited locations within the city where unconsolidated soils underlie new development projects, namely in areas underlain by sandy soils and/or areas where the ground water table elevation is high. The EIR determined that while hazards from landslides are possible, they are not considered to be substantial.

The EIR explains that the most widespread uniformly applicable development standards to protect public safety from geologic hazards lie within California Building Code (CBC) requirements. As a legal requirement, development within the buildout of the General Plan would be designed to resist seismic shaking and other geologic hazards in accordance with current CBC requirements. As described in the EIR, several General Plan policies within the Safety Element would also reduce potential geologic hazards to less than significant levels. Policies a.2 through a.7 address actions required to minimize hazards from fault rupture and seismic shaking that could compromise the integrity and safety of buildings. In particular, Policy a.2 requires the preparation of geologic investigations for proposed projects throughout the city. Policies b.1 through b.6 address and minimize hazards from potential landslides; these policies prohibit development on slopes greater than 25 percent, manage grading to minimize slope instability and vegetation removal, require slope stabilization plans, and minimize exposure of soils and slopes to the erosive effects of stormwater runoff. The EIR concluded that through implementation of these General Plan policies and adherence to the latest CBC, that impacts related to geologic hazards would be less than significant.

However, the EIR generally concludes that within locations of existing commercial neighborhoods where new development is likely to be concentrated, soils do not generally exhibit extreme erosion potential or expansion potential. Nevertheless, new development proposals require review to determine the potential intensity of these soils erosion and expansion hazards; as a result of this review, projects are also conditioned to address these hazards as necessary. Safety Element Policy a.2 requires the preparation of engineering and geologic investigations for proposed projects throughout the city. These investigations would include evaluation of soils related hazards. The EIR concluded that through the project-level review and preparation of geotechnical investigations, pursuant to Policy a.2 of the Safety Element, potential General Plan buildout impacts related to soil erosion and expansiveness would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

For the reasons mentioned above in impact section a, c), future cannabis businesses permitted as a result of the proposed ordinance likely would not involve the construction of new structures or ground disturbance. Thus, potential businesses permitted in the future under the ordinance would not result in significant impacts related to soil erosion or expansive soils because future development would not involve the construction of new structures or foundations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
e) Septic Systems. The General Plan EIR NOP in Appendix A of the EIR indicated that inadequate soils to support septic systems may be a potentially significant impact, but an analysis of impacts was not provided. However, as discussed above, the four storefront retail businesses and one non-storefront business allowed by the proposed ordinance would be within existing developed areas and likely within existing buildings, which are served by existing sanitary sewer systems. The commercial and industrial areas in which cannabis businesses would be permitted are served by public sewer systems.

Therefore, the future businesses would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and would result in no impact. For these reasons, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. f) Paleontological Resources. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan EIR, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines included a new question pertaining to paleontological resources.

Significant paleontological resources are fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, and diagnostically or stratigraphically important—and those that add to an existing body of knowledge in specific areas. Most of the fossils found in Monterey County are of marine life forms and form a record of the region’s geologic history of advancing and retreating sea levels.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 94, Packet Page 426 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -41- October 2023
Because of the marine origin of these deposits, the area lacks the large, terrestrial fossils found in other regions such as the dinosaur fossils of the southwestern United States (Monterey County Resource Management Agency 2010). A review of nearly 700 known fossil localities throughout the was conducted by paleontologists in 2001, and 12 fossil sites were identified as having outstanding scientific value.

The areas in which future cannabis business would be permitted within the city are not located in the general locations of significant sites identified in the Monterey County General Plan EIR (Monterey County Resource Management Agency 2010). Future cannabis businesses would be permitted within limited commercial and industrial areas that are currently developed. However, future cannabis businesses resulting from the proposed ordnance are not anticipated to lead to projects involving ground-disturbing construction activities. Given the limited commercial areas in which cannabis retail businesses would be allowed to operate, it is assumed that the four storefront retail businesses and one non-storefront business would occupy existing buildings within the specified overlay districts and that no new structures would be constructed as these areas are already developed. Thus, future projects allowed by the proposed ordinance are not expected to result in ground-disturbing activities that would have the potential to uncover or disturb paleontological resources.

Therefore, the project would result in no impact to paleontological resources.

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
Not Addressed Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Not Addressed Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG). Subsequent to certification of the General Plan EIR, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines included a new topic pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time. Climate change may result from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the composition of the atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, attributed to accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 95, Packet Page 427 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -42- October 2023
Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities.

The greenhouse effect is a natural process by which some of the radiant heat from the sun is captured in the lower atmosphere of the earth, thus maintaining the temperature and making the earth habitable. The gases that help capture the heat are called greenhouse gases. Some GHGs occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases as described below:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned.
• Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil.

Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic waste in solid waste landfills and from the raising of livestock.
• Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.
• High global warning potential (GWP) gases that are not naturally occurring, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), are generated in a variety of industrial processes.

Of these gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. The primary source of these GHGs is fossil fuel use. California’s transportation sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions, followed by electricity consumption as the second largest source, and industrial activities as the third largest source of GHG emissions. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials. The global warming potential of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CDE), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its global warming potential.

In 2006, the California Legislature passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which sought to reduce GHG emissions generated by California to 1990 emissions levels by the year 2020.

AB 32 defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. In 2016, the Legislature followed up with SB 32, which requires California, by 2030, to reduce its statewide GHG emissions so that they are 40 percent below those that occurred in 1990.

In enacting both AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016), the Legislature codified some of the ambitious GHG reduction targets included within certain Executive Orders issued by Governors Schwarzenegger and Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 96, Packet Page 428 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -43- October 2023
Brown. The 2020 statewide GHG reduction target in AB 32 was consistent with the second of three statewide emissions reduction targets set forth in former Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2005 Executive Order known as S-3-05, which is expressly mentioned in AB 32. (See Health & Safety Code section 38501, subd. (i).) That Executive Branch document included the following GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the Governor directed several State agencies to cooperate in the development of a climate action plan. The Secretary of Cal-EPA leads the Climate Action Team, whose goal is to implement global warming emission reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and to report on the progress made toward meeting the emission reduction targets established in the executive order.

In 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order, B-30-15, which created a “new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is established in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” SB 32 codified this target. In 2018, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a statewide goal to “achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and maintain and achieve negative emissions thereafter.” The order directs the CARB to work with other State agencies to identify and recommend measures to achieve those goals.

CARB is the lead agency for implementing AB 32 and SB 32. In accordance with these statutes, CARB conducts an annual statewide GHG Emission Inventory that provides estimates of the amount of GHGs emitted to the atmosphere by human activities within California. In accordance with requirements of AB 32, CARB adopted an Initial Scoping Plan in 2008 and is required to update the scoping plan at least every five years. The First Update to the Scoping Plan, approved in 2014, established a 2030 emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The 2017 Scoping Plan identified a balanced mix of strategies to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit.

The current 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) was approved by CARB on December 15, 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path not just to carbon neutrality by 2045, but also to the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target. The 2022 Scoping Plan analyzed four scenarios, with the objective of informing the most viable path to remain on track to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target. The scenario modeling indicates that, if the plan described in the Proposed Scenario is fully implemented, and done so on schedule, the State would cut GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels, result in a 71 percent reduction in smog-forming air pollution, reduce fossil fuel consumption by 94 percent, and create 4 million new jobs, among other benefits (California Air Resources Board 2022a).

The 2022 Scoping Plan details “Local Actions” in Appendix D, which includes recommendations intended to build momentum for local government actions that align with the State’s climate goals, with a focus on local GHG reduction strategies (commonly referred to as climate action planning) and approval of new land use development projects, including through environmental review under CEQA. The recommendations provided in Appendix D are non-binding and should not be interpreted as a directive to local governments, but rather as evidence-based analytical tools to assist local governments with their role as essential partners in achieving California’s climate goals. Appendix D Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 97, Packet Page 429 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -44- October 2023
recognizes consistency with a CEQA-qualified GHG reduction plan such as a Climate Action Plan as a preferred option for evaluating potential GHG emission impacts under CEQA (California Air Resources Board 2022b).

The City of Monterey adopted an updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) in June 2016. The CAP proposes programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. The CAP establishes a 2005 baseline emissions inventory that categorizes emissions as either “community” or “government operations.” The 2005 community and government baseline emissions inventory totaled 327,422 MTCO2e (metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent). The CAP also includes a 2012 emissions inventory update in which community and government emissions totaled 301,814 MTCO2e for 2012, a reduction of 7.8 percent overall and 29.7 percent for government operations. The City has established an emission reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 levels (as an estimate of 1990 levels) by 2020.

This represents an estimated reduction of 827 MTCO2e and 48,286 MTCO2e from government operations and the community, respectively from 2005 levels. The goals match recommendations in AB 32.

The significant emission reduction achievements on the part of the City’s government operations highlight the success of numerous municipal programs, including reduced carbon intensity of the vehicle fleet and most significantly, the switch to renewable energy sources for municipal buildings and facilities. Reductions in community emissions have occurred since 2005, primarily from the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, statewide vehicle emission controls, a green building ordinance, green business certification, retrofits conducted in the city through AMBAG Energy Watch Program and PG&E renewable energy purchase programs. Energy retrofits contribute significantly to reductions. Specifically, government efforts in this category include streetlight replacements with LED fixtures, parking garages throughout the City, HVAC system upgrades, and pool lighting retrofits at the Monterey Sports Center. Furthermore, the Climate Action Plan Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT) Study concludes that total VMT will be reduced with implementation of the General Plan, further reducing GHG emissions.

The CAP includes the following existing and proposed GHG reduction programs related to commercial development to meet target reductions include:
• Green Building Program (2008-2014) — The City of Monterey was a leader in adopting the first Green Building Program in Monterey County. This program required developments to incorporate green building practices. This program was replaced by the State of California Cal Green mandatory codes in 2014.
• Green Business Program — The City of Monterey has a program to certify businesses that use green practices.
• Right Lights and Lodging Saver — The program assists businesses increase energy efficiency and qualify for potential rebates. The program includes audits, targets low or no out of pocket costs, rapid return on investment and non-profit assistance. • Hospitality EE Campaign — The Siemens program assists hotels with energy upgrades and retrofits including smart metering, controlled room automation, energy efficient lighting and other building management systems.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 98, Packet Page 430 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -45- October 2023
With regard to GHG emissions, the MBARD has not identified a significance threshold for GHG emissions or a methodology for analyzing impacts related to GHG emissions. However, the State and the City’s CAP include GHG emissions reduction goals.

7.11 establishes three criteria in which future permit applications would be ranked, one of which is sustainable business practices that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, it is expected the limited number of cannabis businesses that would occur as a result of the proposed project would result in similar or reduced levels of GHG emissions as would occur with other commercial or industrial businesses that would be replaced or could occur in the same locations. Therefore, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that would not have a significant effect on the environment.
b) Conflicts with Plans, Policies, Regulations. In addition to state plans to reduce GHG emissions, SB 375, signed in August 2008, requires the inclusion of Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) in regional transportation plans (RTPs) for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The bill requires the CARB to set regional targets for the purpose of reducing GHG from passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. The City’s CAP includes GHG emissions reduction strategies for both the community (emissions within the City borders) and government operations (emission resulting from the activities associated with managing the City). Given the fact that future cannabis businesses would represent replacement of existing commercial or industrial businesses and would be required to include measures the business would take to reduce GHG emission, the project does not conflict with the City’s CAP, demonstrating consistency with Executive Order S-3-05 and the Air Resources Board’s 44 Early Action Measures for AB 32 compliance. Therefore, the project does not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. No impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 99, Packet Page 431 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -46- October 2023

9. Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
DEIR pages 2-
61, and 2-65 to
2-66
No No
General Plan
Update
Mitigation
Measure #2 that
is included in
General Plan
Safety Element
Goal g and
Mitigation
Measure #3 that
is included in
General Plan
Safety Element
Policy h.2
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
DEIR pages 2-61
and 2-65 to 2-
66 No No Same as Above
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
¼ miles of an existing or proposed
school?
DEIR pages 2-61
and 2-65 to 2-
66 No No Same as Above
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
DEIR page 2-66 No No None
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area?
DEIR page 2-66 No No
General Plan
Update
Mitigation
Measure #4 that
has been
included in the
General Plan as
Safety Element
Policy e.4;
General Plan
Safety Element
Policies e.1
through e.3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 100, Packet Page 432 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -47- October 2023

9. Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
DEIR pages 2-62
and 2-66 to 2-
67 No No
General Plan
Safety Element
Policies h.1
through h.6
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
DEIR pages 2-61
to 2-62 No No
General Plan
Safety Element
Policy d.2 and
supporting
Programs d.2.1
through d.2.4
a-c) Hazardous Materials and Creation of Hazards. In terms of hazardous materials usage, many types of hazardous wastes are used throughout the City in residential, commercial, and industrial applications. The Monterey County Environmental Health Division is responsible for managing the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in amounts over a specific threshold (the threshold varies among uses and types of materials). The Environmental Health Division keeps an inventory of hazardous materials users and is responsible for working with users to develop plans that ensure the materials are safely used, stored, transported, and disposed.

The General Plan EIR indicatesthat buildout of the plan area could result in an increase in the volume, frequency, and types of hazardous material used, handled, stored, transported, and disposed within the city. The EIR analysis states that it is possible that the number of incidences in which hazardous materials are released to the environment could increase if the frequency of use or volume increases, including incidences within one-quarter mile of a proposed or existing school site. The EIR found that the General Plan and future development would result in a potentially significant impact relate to exposure to or release of hazardous materials, including within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. However, the EIR noted that the use of hazardous materials would be managed by both the City and the Monterey County Environmental Health Division. The Environmental Health Division keeps an inventory of hazardous materials users and is responsible for working with users to develop plans that ensure the materials are safely used, stored, transported, and disposed.

Because the General Plan Update does not contain specific policies related to the use, storage, handling, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, the EIR includes two mitigation measures to address and reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measures would be added to the General Plan Update Safety Element as policies or modifications to proposed policies. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure #2, which is incorporated into the General Plan as Safety Element Goal g, requires that all applications for discretionary project to evaluate the use of hazardous materials; it also requires that project that propose the use, handling, storage, transportation and/or disposal of hazardous materials incorporate actions to Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 101, Packet Page 433 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -48- October 2023
minimize hazards to public health and safety in conformance with County of Monterey Environmental Health Division requirements for the reporting and management of such materials. General Plan Update Mitigation Measure #3 requires the modification of Safety Element to incorporate language stating that emergency response plans for releases of hazardous materials into the environment will continue to be developed, which has been incorporated into the General Plan as Safety Element Policy h.2. The EIR concluded that implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials to a less than significant level.

Any hazardous materials used during construction activities would be required to comply with existing federal, state and local requirements that oversee and regulate the transport, storage, use and disposal of these materials. In addition, cannabis businesses would not allowed within 600 feet of schools as specified in the proposed ordinance, although it is possible that such businesses could be located within one-quarter mile. However, future cannabis businesses operations allowed by the proposed ordinance are not expected to involve the use of hazardous materials given the nature of the cannabis retail and testing businesses that would be allowed. Furthermore, Section 7-7.09 of the proposed ordinance requires that each cannabis business shall have a storage and transportation plan that describes in detail the procedures for safely and securely storing and transporting all cannabis, cannabis products, and any hazardous materials that may be used by the business. Additionally, new development would be subject to the General Plan Safety Element Goal g, which would require appropriate measures for storage and handling of hazardous materials, which would be considered a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, the proposed project would not lead to increased impacts related to the use, handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials or result in creation of significant hazards or hazardous emissions, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR, with measures that would be imposed by the proposed regulations, as well as, uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of future development review, if needed. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. d) Hazardous Materials Sites. The General Plan EIR indicatesthat implementation of the General Plan would not result the development on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government code section 65962.5. The EIR therefore concluded that the General Plan Update would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment related to hazardous materials sites; the impact would be less than significant.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 102, Packet Page 434 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -49- October 2023
The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of specified cannabis business, and cannabis retail businesses are limited to five. Future uses permitted pursuant to the proposed project would be located in developed commercial areas, and it is expected that uses would be located within existing buildings; cannabis testing businesses would be located in existing industrial-research park areas. Therefore, future businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would be located at sites and likely within existing buildings that are currently used for commercial or industrial businesses. Therefore, future cannabis businesses are not expected to result in new construction or ground disturbance. Any new construction that requires a discretionary permit would be subject to project-specific evaluation under CEQA, a review distinct from the proposed ordinance scope, which would address, if relevant, sites on a hazardous materials or waste sites list developed pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. For these reasons, the proposed project would not create significant hazards to the public or the environment related to hazardous material or waste sites. The project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. e) Location Near Airport. Monterey Peninsula Airport operations have the potential to create safety issues related to safe operation of approaching and departing aircraft. The Monterey Regional Airport Master Plan (2015) and Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) shows “runway protection zones” at each end of the main airport runway. Within these areas, land use controls are exercised to minimize potential safety conflicts with activities that take place within the zones. Such controls and guidelines include the prohibition or limitation of uses that involve large assemblages of people, limitations on building heights and heights of other potential obstructions, and prohibition of new structures. Existing land uses that are within the western approach safety zone include much of the U.S. Navy Golf Course, the Monterey County Fairgrounds, and a small section of residential development. Uses within the eastern protection zone include commercial and residential development at the Highway 218/Highway 68 intersection. Smaller additional safety areas extend beyond the primary protection zone wherein specific development standards apply in order to minimize conflicts with airport operations.

The General Plan EIR indicates that buildout of the plan area would not result in a substantial change in the development potential or intensity of land located within runway protection zones as defined by the Monterey Regional Airport ALUCP. Additionally as indicated in the EIR, the City conditions future development within these zones to be consistent with development standards established by the Monterey Peninsula Airport District. The EIR concluded that potentially significant hazards related to airport land use safety could occur as a result of future development. However, the EIR analysis indicates that Safety Element Polices e.1 through e.3 address potential airport safety issues: Policy e.1 requires the City’s continued support of safety improvements to the Monterey Peninsula Airport, Policy e.2 notes the need to work with the Airport District through a fire mutual aid agreement, and Policy e.3 requires cleanup of groundwater contamination from Airport properties. The EIR also includes Mitigation Measure #4, which requires the City to review projects that may pose risk to the safe operations of the airport in collaboration with the Airport District and to address potential safety issues and mitigate impacts as part of the development review process. The EIR concluded that Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 103, Packet Page 435 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -50- October 2023
implementation of these policies and the proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure #4 was incorporated into the General Plan as Safety Element Policy e.4.

In the unlikely event that new structures are proposed for cannabis testing laboratories in industrial areas near the airport, new development would be subject to the General Plan Safety Element Policy e.4 as required by EIR Mitigation Measure #4, which would require appropriate review of projects in airport safety zones and implementation of mitigation, if needed. Implementation of this General Plan policy would be considered a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to location near airports as analyzed in the General Plan EIR, with uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of future development review, if needed. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. f) Emergency Response Plans. The City of Monterey Fire Department and City of Monterey Police Department coordinate emergency response within the City. The City operates its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as the center of emergency response coordination and actions. During an emergency, all response activities are managed by the EOC, including information, equipment, volunteers, and other resources. Plans for responses to emergency situations are formulated by fire and police officials, and actions to implement those plans are communicated to emergency response teams that operate out of the EOC and throughout the City. The City also operates the Citizens Emergency Response Training (CERT) program. The main goal of the CERT program is to help Monterey residents to be self-sufficient in a major disaster by developing multifunctional teams that are cross-trained in basic skills. The City’s emergency response efforts are coordinated under the broader umbrella of the State of California Office of Emergency Services. The County of Monterey also has an emergency response office, but the City is not a participating jurisdiction in the County’s response program. The County Environmental Health Division Hazardous Materials Branch and the City of Seaside Hazardous Materials Team would likely be the first agencies to provide support to the City in the event that the City does not have the capacity or capability to fully address a hazard. Both agencies are fully trained and equipped to respond to a variety of hazardous materials related incidents.

The General Plan EIR concludes that the implementation of the General Plan Update would not have an adverse impact on the ability of the City or other supporting emergency response agencies to Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 104, Packet Page 436 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -51- October 2023
implement emergency response plans. The EIR indicatesthat the General Plan Update includes Safety Element emergency preparedness Polices h.1 through h.6 that would benefit emergency response in the event of a natural or human-made disaster. These policies, which are aimed to ensure the prompt and effective service to cope will local emergencies, involve the provision of emergency response services, development of emergency plans, interagency and intercity collaboration, and maintenance of community evacuation facilities. The EIR concludes that buildout of the plan area would result in less-than-significant impact related to potential impairment or interference with implementation of emergency response plans.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of specified cannabis business, and cannabis retail businesses are limited to five. Future uses permitted pursuant to the proposed project would be located in developed commercial areas, and it is expected that uses would be located within existing buildings; cannabis testing laboratories would be located in existing industrial-research park areas. As described above, construction associated with future cannabis businesses would only involve interior tenant improvements. Therefore, construction would not be of a scale that could pose conflict with emergency response plans. Also, businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would be located in areas that are already within proximity to evacuation routes identified in the City’s General Plan. Thus, the proposed project would not result in potential conflict with emergency response plans. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
g) Exposure to Wildland Fires. Fire hazards can generally be divided into two main types: (1) fires within urban areas that primarily involve specific sites and structures; and (2) fires within undeveloped or minimally developed areas, commonly called wildland fires. Most of the land within the present city limits is developed with urban uses. The City of Monterey Fire Department responds to both structure and wildland fires within the planning area. The City of Monterey Fire Department maintains three stations and operates several fire prevention programs. In the event that the City does not have the capacity to safely handle a structural or wildland fire, it can request additional firefighting resources through the Monterey County Mutual Aid Plan. The Monterey County Mutual Aid Plan enables any jurisdiction that participates in the plan to receive support from fire protection services of other jurisdictions that participate in implementing the plan. Response times to nearly all areas of the City are within the Department’s recommended range of five to seven minutes.

The Monterey City Code Chapter 13, Fire Protection, adopted the 2016 California Fire Code pursuant to Monterey City Ordinance No. 3600 (effective January 2020). Amendments to this chapter of the code, as well as amendments to the City’s General Plan Map 14, Showing Fire Hazard Severity Zones, were adopted by the City Council on June 2, 2009, to be in compliance with legislation (Government Code section 51175). This legislation calls for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Director to evaluate fire hazard severity in Local Responsibility Areas and make a recommendation to the local jurisdiction when the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) exists. Based on the findings of the CAL FIRE Director, there are both High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the City of Monterey City limits as shown on the City’s General Plan Map 14.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 105, Packet Page 437 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -52- October 2023
The General Plan EIR found that with an increase in population and an increase in development intensity, especially in areas designated for commercial mixed-use and potential new industrial development in the Ryan Ranch area along Highway 68, the threat of urban fire hazards will rise. The majority of new development potential proposed in the General Plan Update is within already developed areas that are not located within or directly adjacent to areas of high fire hazard. However, the EIR determined that incremental development of vacant parcels designated for residential uses that are located within or adjacent to forested hillsides or chaparral-covered areas could occur, as would industrial development within the Ryan Ranch annexation area. This growth would introduce human activity into areas where fire hazard is of significant concern.

The General Plan EIR was prepared before the CEQA guidelines included this impact as a standard environmental checklist threshold. Therefore, this impact was not analyzed under the EIR. However, the General Plan does include policies and programs (Safety Element Policies d.1 through d.6) that address fire protection measures to be included in future developments, including access design (Policy d.2 and supporting programs) and use of fire-retardant building materials (Program d.2.4).

As discussed above, the four storefront retail businesses and one non-storefront business allowed by the proposed ordinance would occupy existing buildings within developed commercial areas, which are not located within mapped fire hazard areas. Similarly, most of the industrial areas where cannabis testing laboratories could be located are outside mapped fire hazard areas, except for the western portion of Ryan Ranch along Highway 68. However, as previously explained, this area is mostly developed, and cannabis businesses are expected to locate within existing buildings. Thus, impacts resulting from the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or residences are intermixed with wildlands is considered less than significant. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

See impact Section III.E.20, Wildfire, of this checklist.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 106, Packet Page 438 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -53- October 2023

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
DEIR pages 2-74
and 2-76 to 2-
77 No No
General Plan
Urban Design
Element Policy
d.1 and
Conservation
Element Policies
b.1 through b.4
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
DEIR pages 2-
73-74 and 2-77 No No None
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

DEIR page 2-78
General Plan
Update Safety
Element Policies
c.2, c.4, and
Public Facilities
Policy I.1
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
DEIR page 2-78 No No
General Plan
Update Safety
Element Policy
c.4
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
DEIR pages 2-78
No No
General Plan
Update Safety
Element Policies
c.2 and Public
Facilities Policy
I.1
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
DEIR pages 2-78
and 2-136 to 2-
138
No No
General Plan
Update Safety
Element Policies
c.2, c.4, and
Public Facilities
Policy I.1
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
DEIR pages 2-74
and 2-78 No No
General Plan
Update Safety
Element Policies
c.2, c.4, and
Public Facilities
Policy I.1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 107, Packet Page 439 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -54- October 2023

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
DEIR pages 2-
78, 2-79 No No
General Plan
Update
Mitigation
Measure #5 that
is included in
General Plan
Safety Element
Program c.1.a;
General Plan
Update Safety
Element Policies
c.2, c.4, and
Public Facilities
Policy I.1
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Not Addressed Not Applicable Not Applicable None
a) Violation of Water Quality Standards. The City maintains approximately 10 miles of storm drainage infrastructure – drainage channels, storm drains, pipelines, culverts, pump stations, and outfalls - within the city. The existing drainage system collects non-point surface water runoff and conveys it through channels, pipelines, and culverts that, in most instances, eventually terminate at the Monterey Bay. The City’s storm water collection system is not tied into the sanitary sewer collection system. Therefore, stormwater flows are, for the most part, not treated prior discharge.

Storm water flows are discharged to local waterways including the Monterey Bay at multiple drainage outfalls located throughout Monterey’s coastal area.

The General Plan EIR indicates that buildout of the plan area may lead to intensification of commercial and industrial areas that could introduce elevated levels of urban pollutants which could be carried from storm water runoff to drainage courses, lakes, and the Monterey Bay. The EIR indicates that surface and groundwater quality degradation could be significant unless actions are taken to reduce the volume of pollutants generated and/or to adequately remove pollutants from storm water.

However, the EIR concludes that with implementation of General Plan policies, water quality degradation impacts resulting from future development would be less than significant. The Urban Design Element Policy d.1 discourages the proliferation of parking and other impervious surfaces at Lake El Estero, and Conservation Element Policies b.1 through b.4 focus on maintaining and improving surface water quality; Policy b.1 supports public education to eliminate the use of storm drains for disposal of hazardous substances or inappropriate wastes; Policy b.2 requires implementation of erosion and sediment control as well as regular street sweeping to reduce particulate matter loads in storm water; Policy b.3 requires removal of vegetation and development in erosion prone areas be Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 108, Packet Page 440 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -55- October 2023
minimized; and Policy b.4 supports the retention and remediation of wetlands, riparian areas, and other natural areas that serve to filter degraded water. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update policies and programs would reduce surface water quality impacts from buildout of the plan, resulting in a less-than-significant impact related to water quality.

Furthermore, the City’s discharge of storm water to local surface waters is regulated by the federal Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program, and the California Porter-Cologne Act, and permitted through the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The City stormwater permit and ordinance require local regulation of water pollution and prevention through the mandated implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to protect the water quality of local waterways. Design strategies to minimize runoff by slowing, spreading, sinking, and capturing rainwater are known as Low Impact Design (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs). LID BMPs manage the volume and rate of storm water runoff flowing away from a site and assist in maintaining a more natural hydrologic process in urban watersheds.

According to the General Plan EIR, the City’s stormwater system is already permitted under the NPDES, and the City implements best management practices to reduce pollutants. The City will continue to implement the Storm Water Quality Program elements from the Model Urban Runoff Program as required by the State’s NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Storm Sewer Systems as directed in General Plan Public Facilities Element Policy l.2. With implementation of the City’s Municipal Code regulations and through issuance of use and building permits, the City regulates applicable new and redevelopment projects for stormwater control; construction activities for erosion, sediment, and discharge control; identifies and enforces illicit connections and illicit discharges; and implements good housekeeping practices for municipal operations to protect local water quality.

For the reasons explained above, new cannabis businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would not result in significant water quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 109, Packet Page 441 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -56- October 2023
evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
b) Groundwater Supplies. The General Plan EIR indicates that water is supplied to most of the Monterey Peninsula by the California American Water Company (Cal-Am) through wells in Carmel Valley, dams on the Carmel River, and a well on the Seaside Aquifer. Water demand from new development within the Fort Ord area would be supplied with existing sources of water allocated to Fort Ord. New supply would not be required to support development at this location. The EIR indicates that implementation of the General Plan Update would increase the demand for domestic water supply which is derived from groundwater. While the EIR indicates that a substantial depletion of groundwater supply is being adequately avoided through the monitoring and regulatory actions of all responsible agencies, including the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), the increase in demand for domestic water supply, including that derived from groundwater, would continue to put pressure on a limited environmental resource, and the EIR found that potential substantial depletion of groundwater supplies was a potentially significant impact.

To address future water demand, the EIR indicates that the MPWMD would continue to have discretion over whether additional water supply can be provided to meet the City’s needs. The EIR also explains that the City imposes a standard condition of approval requiring the submittal of documentation indicating that project applicants have secured adequate water allocation; this condition of approval would ensure that no building permits are issued unless water is available and allocated to the project. General Plan Update Public Facilities Policy m.1 includes eight implementation programs which are intended to encourage the creation of alternative sources of water and to minimize demand for domestic water supply within the city. Programs m.1.5 through m.1.8 focus on conservation measures to reduce water demand. Implementation of this policy and it related conservation measures would reduce demand for new water supply, including the supply currently derived from groundwater. The EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan Update would be monitored to ensure that development would not contribute to a direct or cumulative impact on water supply. The EIR also determined that implementation of the General Plan Update is not expected to result in the increase in significant amount of impervious area; therefore, as stated in the EIR, buildout of the plan area is not expected to directly or indirectly result in a substantial decrease in groundwater recharge potential. With implementation of General Plan policies and other actions by the MPWMD, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. It is also noted that subsequent to the certification of the General Plan EIR, the MPWMD and other agencies have embarked on several projects that would produce supplemental water supplies for the CalAm service area. See also Section III.E.19 for further discussion on water demand and supplies.

Similarly, cannabis testing laboratories, which are already allowed in the I-R zone likely would be located in existing buildings as the industrially-designated areas are mostly already developed.

Therefore, the new cannabis businesses that would be permitted under the proposed project would Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 110, Packet Page 442 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -57- October 2023
represent replacement of existing commercial or industrial uses. Neither cannabis retail or testing businesses are expected to use substantial amounts of water that differ from existing retail or industrial uses. Under current MPWMD requirements, future businesses permitted under the proposed regulations would be required to demonstrate that water demand is consistent with historical water use at the property. Thus, water demand generated by new cannabis businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would not have an adverse effect on groundwater supplies or recharge. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. c) Stormwater Drainage. As indicated above and described in the General Plan EIR, the City owns and maintains a storm drainage system that collects and transports storm water to the Monterey Bay.

The system includes over 10 miles of pipelines and drainage channels. Storm water runoff is collected through catch basins and storm water inlets that direct runoff into the pipelines and channels. A series of storm water outfalls are located along the margin of the Bay through which storm water is discharged. As indicated in the EIR, with the exception of development potential within the Fort Ord annexation area, buildout of the plan area is not expected to result in significant changes in drainage patterns or an increase in storm water volumes that exceed storm drainage infrastructure capacity.

Because development under the General Plan Update is anticipated to occur primarily within existing commercial areas, generation of additional storm drainage runoff would be directed to locations already developed with impervious surfaces and therefore moderated. The EIR concludes that changes in storm drainage runoff volume from intensification of land use in these areas are not expected to be substantial; existing storm drainage infrastructure was determined to be sufficient to convey increases in runoff.

The EIR found that development of vacant infill parcels and the Fort Ord annexation area could result in an increase in storm drainage volumes. To accommodate new development on remaining, infill parcels, the EIR indicated that expansion of existing storm drainage infrastructure may be necessary.

A complete storm drainage plan would be needed before development of the Fort Ord annexation area occurs. The plan would include determination of projected stormwater runoff volumes and required improvements to ensure that storm drainage is adequately managed to minimize erosion and localized flooding potential. The EIR explains that that the Safety Element Flood Hazards Policies c.2 and c.4. address this impact. Policy c.2. requires that storm drainage systems be designed to accommodate projected uses before those uses are developed. Policy c.4. requires that projects be designed to maximum natural percolation of rainfall; minimize direct overlay runoff onto adjoining properties, water courses, and streets; and minimize impervious surface cover, as well as incorporate ponding and siltation basins as needed. Thirdly, Public Facilities Storm Drain Policy l.1 states that storm drainage fees be set at a rate sufficient to ensure maintenance, replacement, and/or upgrades to the system as needed. The EIR concluded that implementation of these policies through the development review process would minimize related drainage impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Similarly, cannabis testing laboratory businesses, which are already allowed in the I-R zone likely would be located in existing buildings as the industrially-designated areas are mostly already developed. As described above, future development permitted under the proposed ordinance likely would not require the construction of new structures or increase in impervious surface. Therefore, the overall existing drainage patterns resulting from future cannabis business sites would not be altered; the proposed ordinance would not result in an increased rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that could result in erosion, flooding, or degradation of water quality. Thus, potential cannabis businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would not have an adverse effect on drainage patterns or result in off-site erosion, flooding or other impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. d) Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones. As indicated in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan Update Land Use Map does not enable development within flood hazard zones. The EIR found that General Plan Update would allow new development that would be primarily directed to existing developed areas, and new development would not be located within existing flood hazard areas to the extent that downstream flood elevations or flood flows would be increased or redirected.

Although, the EIR concluded that the buildout of the plan would not result in a significant increase in exposure of the public to flood hazards defined by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the EIR found the impact related to increased flood hazards to be potentially significant. However, the EIR found that any development proposed within a 100-year flood hazard zone would be required to comply with FEMA standards to address direct impacts to that development. The EIR indicates that General Plan Update Safety Element Policies c.2, c.4, and Public Facilities Policy I.1, as described above under threshold c, would address potential flood hazards. However, the EIR concludes that because the General Plan Update does not contain explicit policy language requiring the mitigation of hazards from development within a 100-year flood plain, General Plan Update Mitigation Measure #5 would be required. This mitigation measure is included in the General Plan as Safety Element Program c.1.a and would require the City to review all development proposals within a 100-year flood hazard zone consistent with the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program standards. The EIR determined that buildout of the plan area would result in a less-than-significant impact related to flood hazards through compliance with these General Pan policies and mitigation measure.

The EIR notes that tsunami and wave run up may present a hazard for development of any remaining vacant parcels with the plan area located along the margin of the Monterey Bay. However, the EIR concludes that adherence to the Safety Element Policy c.1 directly addresses tsunami and wave run up hazards. The policy states that potential hazards from storm waves, tsunamis, high tidal conditions, and flooding for projects along the bay would be addressed and reduced. The EIR concludes that implementation of this policy through project review would reduce inundation impacts due to tsunamis and wave run up to a less-than-significant level.

Therefore, future business operations would result in new or additional risk related inundation associated with possible flood, tsunami, or seiche events. Thus, the proposed project and resulting businesses would not be located in flood or tsunami hazard areas in which a release of pollutants from inundation would occur, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. e) Conflicts with Plans. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan EIR, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines included a question pertaining to project conflicts with adopted water quality control or sustainable groundwater management plans. The project site is not located adjacent to or near a stream or water body. The Central Coast RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Central Coastal Basin (2019) is the water quality control plan applicable to the City of Monterey.

Water quality objectives are included in the Basin Plan for protection of surface water and groundwater quality in the Central Coast Region. The Basin Plan lists beneficial uses for surface waters and describes the water quality objectives that must be maintained to allow those uses, and outlines water quality management practices for surface water and groundwater. The Basin Plan describes waste discharge requirements and requirements for NPDES permitting. The proposed project is not located adjacent to a water body, and as discussed above, the project would not result in water quality degradation impacts. The city is not located within an area for which a sustainable groundwater management plan has been or is being prepared. However, the project would not substantially affect groundwater resources; see subsection (b) above. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of either a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

11. Land Use
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Physically divide an established
community? DEIR page 2-82 No No None
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
DEIR pages 2-
82, 2-83 No No None
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 113, Packet Page 445 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -60- October 2023

11. Land Use
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental
effect?
a) Division of Established Community. The General Plan EIR indicated that buildout of the plan area would not result in a physical division of an existing community. The EIR notes that there are no major infrastructure projects involved with the implementation of the General Plan Update that would divide or disrupt an existing community.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of cannabis retail testing businesses to specified locations that are already developed areas within the city. Thus, future development under the proposed ordinance would not be located in a manner that could physically divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
b) Conflicts with Adopted Plans, Policies, and Regulations. Sections 1.5 and 2.8 of General Plan EIR indicates that implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with regional plans.

Specifically, the EIR concludes that the General Plan Update was consistent with the AQMP, Monterey Country Regional Transportation Plan, the Ford Ord Reuse Plan, Monterey County General Plan, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Monterey Peninsula Airport. Therefore, the EIR determined that there would be a less than significant impact related to potential conflict with adopted plans, policies, and regulations.

The proposed Cannabis Business Overlay districts would not introduce new land use designations or otherwise alter the general land use patterns or development standards. Rather, the Cannabis Overlay would establish locations in the City that permit land uses related to commercial cannabis, which would remain subject to development standards set forth in the underlying zone district to which the Overlay is Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 114, Packet Page 446 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -61- October 2023
added. Except for the C-2 zone nearest Cannery Row (CB-3), all proposed overlay districts would be subject to adopted specific plans that are the established regulations in the underlying zone district as explained in Section III.B of this document. The underlying C-2 zone district would provide the development regulations for the CB-3 overlay district. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Cannabis Business Overlay zone district would not conflict with existing land use designations or physically divide an established community.

The CB Overlay District would allow for cannabis retail businesses which are consistent with the Minor Retail Sales type that are allowed within the respective land use designations under the Downtown, Lighthouse, and North Fremont Specific Plans. These specific plans govern the Planned Community district overlay zones for which the proposed ordinance would allow future cannabis retail businesses. The Minor Retail Sales use designation within these specific plans is defined as an establishment that primarily offers new or used goods for purchase by the consumer; this definition excludes adult content sales, animal sales, motor vehicle rentals, and fuel sales. Therefore, cannabis retail sales are consistent with this use type and the land use regulations governing the Downtown, Lighthouse, and North Fremont Planned Community districts.

The proposed ordinance also includes requirements for permit applications as well as operational requirements for retail and cannabis testing laboratories; the application requirements identify measures the cannabis business must take ensure operational security. A zoning clearance consistency review would be required to ensure future cannabis business applications are consistent with all applicable zoning regulations, including those proposed under the ordinance.

Thus, the project and subsequent cannabis businesses would not result in conflicts with existing policies or programs adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

12. Mineral Resources
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
DEIR Appendix
A
No No None
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
DEIR Appendix
A
No No None
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 115, Packet Page 447 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -62- October 2023
a–b) Mineral Resource Availability. The NOP prepared for the General Plan EIR contained an environmental checklist form that determined which environmental factors could be potentially impacted by implementation of the General Plan. The NOP, which is included Appendix A of the Draft EIR, determined that implementation of the General Plan would have no impact to mineral resources because there are no mineral resources within the General Plan Study Area.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed project would not affect any mineral resources as future business sites allowed under the proposed project are not in locations designated or zoned for mineral resources as there are no lands designated or zoned for mineral resources within the city. Thus, the proposed project would result in no impact to mineral resource availability. The proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

13. Noise
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project result in: Standards
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies?
DEIR pages 2-91
to 2-93 and 2-
94 to 2-98
No No
General Plan
Update
Mitigation
Measure #6;
General Plan
Update Noise
Element Policies
a.1 through a.6,
b.5, and d.1
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise
levels?
DEIR page 2-94 No No None
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
DEIR pages2-93
to 2-94 and 2-
97 to 2-98
No No
General Plan
Update Noise
Element Policies
b.1 through b.5
and d.1
a-b) Noise and Vibration Increases. The General Plan EIR indicates that implementation of the General Plan Update and buildout of the plan area would result in increased vehicle traffic-related noise levels along major roads throughout the city. This has the potential to impact existing noise sensitive uses located along certain road segments. The EIR also notes that future development Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 116, Packet Page 448 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -63- October 2023
located along these major roadways may be exposed to potentially significant exterior noise levels.

The EIR found impacts related to increased exposure to noise to be a significant impact.

However, the EIR concludes that implementation of General Plan Update Noise Element policies would reduce noise exposure to less than significant levels. As described in the EIR, Noise Policies a.1 and a.2 function to minimize noise generated from truck traffic by limiting trucks to designated routes; Policies a.3 and a.4 function to manage traffic flow on city roadways and State highways to control traffic noise levels; Policy a.5 requires buffer areas adjacent to roadways and freeways; Policy a.6 encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation to reduce traffic related noise; Policy b.5 establishes noise standards withing Table 8 of the General Plan Update and requires acoustical studies for proposed new development; Policy d.1 requires implementation of noise reduction measures to reduce interior noise levels to levels under thresholds established in Table 8 of the General Plan Update. As described in the EIR and this Policy, the acoustical study would indicate existing and projected exterior noise levels and recommend sound attenuation and insulation measures needed to meet the City’s noise exposure standards. Through the implementation of these measures, the EIR determines that potential noise exposure increases to new development and related to increased traffic would be less than significant.

The EIR indicates that construction activities associated with the buildout of the plan area have the potential to lead to temporary noise exposure. The EIR notes that this noise exposure would be potentially significant during most sensitive morning, evening, and nighttime hours. However, to address this potentially significant impact, the EIR includes General Plan Update Mitigation Measure #6. This mitigation measure limits noise generating construction activities between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM and requires this as a standard condition of approval for future projects. The EIR concludes that implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant.

Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction-related groundborne vibration levels. The General Plan EIR concluded that construction activities related to new development associated with General Plan Update buildout are not expected to create significant sources of groundborne vibrations or other excessive noise events.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the number and location of specified cannabis businesses. Given the limited commercial and industrial areas in which cannabis retail and testing businesses would be allowed to operate, respectively, it is assumed that new businesses would occupy existing buildings as these areas are already developed. The types of cannabis businesses that would be permitted by the proposed regulations would be within enclosed buildings and would not be the type of use that would generate substantial increases in noise levels.

Future businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance are not anticipated to involve operations that would be differ in noise generation from existing commercial businesses and tenants. As noted in the Project Description, cannabis retail businesses are expected to have similar number of employees and customers as other comparable retail businesses currently permitted in the city. As Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 117, Packet Page 449 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -64- October 2023
future cannabis businesses are expected to be located within existing buildings, future development under the proposed ordinance would not result in major construction that could result in significant temporary increases in noise levels. Nonetheless, should future construction occur, it would be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM per General Plan Update Mitigation Measure #6, which is considered a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, future cannabis businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would not result in generation of substantial temporary or permanent increases in noise levels or vibration levels, with uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of future development review. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
c) Location Near Airport. The General Plan EIR indicates that buildout of the plan area could result in a greater number of people living within areas where airport related noise levels exceed acceptable noise exposure standards resulting in a potentially significant impact. The EIR indicates that this increase would primarily occur in the North Fremont neighborhood. However, the EIR indicates that the General Plan Update Noise Element includes policies that would help reduce exposure to aircraft noise. Policies b.1 through b.4 are intended to promote collaboration between the City and Monterey Peninsula Airport District to ensure aircraft noise exposure is reduce and/or limited to certain hours.

Policies b.5 and d.1 also would also address potential noise impacts related to airport operations.

Policy b.5 requires the City to evaluate land use decisions in the airport area based on its noise exposure standards; Policy d.1 states the City will review potential interior noise exposure levels and require measures to ensure they will be within acceptable levels per Table 8 of the General Plan Update. The EIR determined that through implementation of these policies, noise exposure from airport related operations at residential and other sensitive land uses would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level.

Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to exposure to airport noise as analyzed in the General Plan EIR, with uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of future development review, if needed. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 118, Packet Page 450 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -65- October 2023

14. Population and Housing
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
DEIR page 2-99 Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
DEIR pages 2-99
to 2-100
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
a) Population Growth. The General Plan EIR indicated that buildout of the plan area would result in an increase in population. However, this increase was anticipated to be accommodated by additional housing to meet the City’s regional fair share of housing needs. The EIR concluded that this population growth would not require significant expansion of new roadways or infrastructure that would indirectly induce population growth. For these reasons, the EIR concluded that future growth would result in a less-than-significant impact related to population growth.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 119, Packet Page 451 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -66- October 2023
Future uses permitted pursuant to the proposed project would be located in developed commercial areas, and it is expected that uses would be located within existing buildings; cannabis testing laboratories would be located in existing industrial-research park areas. Thus, potential development permitted in the future would do not include the conversion or removal of housing stock. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

15. Public Services
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? DEIR pages 2-
108 to 2-109 No No
Public Facilities
Element policy
a.4, a.5, and c.2
– c.5
Police protection? DEIR pages 2-
108 to 2-109 No No
Public Facilities
Element policy
a.4, a.5, and b.1
– b.3
Schools? DEIR pages 2-
109 to 2-110 No No
Public Facilities
Element policy
a.4 and d.2 – d.5
Parks? DEIR page 2-111 No No
Public Facilities
Element policy
a.4, a.5, j.1, and
j.4 – j.6
Other public facilities? Not Applicable No No
a) Demand for Public Services. The General Plan EIR indicated that buildout of the plan area would result in an increase in the demand for public services such as fire protection, police protection, school facilities, and parks and recreational facilities. However, the EIR concludes that these impacts would be less than significant. The EIR explains that at the time of the EIR was prepared, the City had planned to construct a new public safety facility that would increase the capacity of police and fire protection departments. As noted in the construction of this facility would be subject to future project-level environmental review that would require potential project-level adverse effects to be mitigated to a less-than-significant level to the extent feasible.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 120, Packet Page 452 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -67- October 2023
The EIR also concludes that while the implementation of the General Plan would lead to an increase of school-aged children, the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) has sufficient school and facility capacity to accommodate this future growth. The EIR notes that park and recreational facility capacity is anticipated to be adequate to accommodate population growth associated with the buildout of the General Plan. It also explains that any future expansion or construction of new park and recreation facilities would be required to undergo project-level environmental review that would require potential adverse effects to mitigated to a less-than-significant level to the extent feasible.

As described in the EIR, the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan also includes policies that would facilitate the maintenance and provision public services. Policy a.4 requires major new development to pay for increased public service demands; Policy a.5 requires that adequate space be provided in new development for public facilities, including fire and/or police facilities and parks; Policies b.1 through b.3 and c.2 through c.5 address potential needs for expanded police and fire facilities, respectively; Policy d.1 encourages City collaboration with the MPUSD; Policy d.2 address reuse of MPUSD school site no longer in use; Policy d.3 encouraged collaboration between the City and other institutional uses in the City for school planning; Policy d.4 encourages shared use of facilities and resources among City, military, and schools; Policy d.5 supports joint use agreements to enable investment in school district facilities; Policy d.5 encourages retaining Monterey High School in the downtown City area; Policy j.1 calls for the continuous evaluation of park services; Policy j.4 encourages for adequate maintenance of existing park and recreation facilities; Policy j.5 requires new park and recreational facilities be provide through capital funding; and Policy j.6 requires that new development pay its fair share for expanded park and recreation facilities. The EIR concluded that implementation of these policies would reduce potential public service impacts to a less-thansignificant level.

Additionally, Section 7-7.09 of the proposed ordinance requires that cannabis businesses provide a detailed security plan, which includes measures to be used to prevent unauthorized access, protect the physical safety of employees and surrounding properties, and protect against theft/loss of cannabis, cannabis products, and all other related materials and equipment. The plan must identify surveillance equipment and locations, physical barriers, alarm systems, and storage of samples and records. Potential development permitted pursuant to the proposed project would not include housing and would not affect school enrollments. Therefore, the proposed project would not lead increased demand for public services. Thus, the proposed project would not result in public service demands that would require new or expanding public facilities, the construction of which could result in significant physical impacts. Therefore, the project not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 121, Packet Page 453 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -68- October 2023
no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

16. Recreation
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
DEIR page 2-111 No No
Public Facilities
Element policy
a.4, a.5, j.1, and
j.4 – j.6
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities?
DEIR page 2-111 No No
Public Facilities
Element policy
a.4, a.5, j.1, and
j.4 – j.6
a-b) Use and Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities. As discussed in Section III.E.15 of this checklist, the General Plan EIR indicated that buildout of the plan area would result in an increase in the demand parks and recreational facilities. However, the EIR concludes that this impact would be less than significant. The EIR notes that park and recreational facility capacity is anticipated to be adequate to accommodate population growth associated with the buildout of the General Plan. It also explains that any future expansion or construction of new park and recreation facilities would be required to undergo project-level environmental review that would require potential adverse effects to mitigated to a less than significant level to the extent feasible.

As described in the EIR, the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan also includes policies that would facilitate the maintenance and provision Policy j.1 calls for the continuous evaluation of park services; Policy j.4 encourages for adequate maintenance of existing park and recreation facilities; Policy j.5 requires new park and recreational facilities be provide through capital funding; and Policy j.6 requires that new development pay its fair share for expanded park and recreation facilities. The EIR concluded that implementation of these policies would reduce potential recreation impacts to a less-than-significant level.

17. Transportation
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Conflict with a program, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
DEIR pages 2-
119 to 125, 2-
128 to 2-129
and 2-130 to 2-
131
No No
Mitigation
Measures # 7-
10, Circulation
Element policies
b-1 thru b.5, c10
thru c.14, d.1
thru d. f, f.1 thru
f.8, h.1, h.2, j.3
b.) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Not Addressed Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (for
example, sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(for example, farm equipment)?
DEIR page 2-129 No No None
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? No No
a) Conflict with Circulation System Plans, Policies or Ordinances. The City has a roadway classification system, which includes freeways, major arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local streets. The City also maintains an extensive network of Class 1, 2, and 3 bicycle facilities and pedestrian sidewalks. The most notable bicycle and pedestrian path is the City’s Recreational Trail that is located along the coastal side of the City, which is a dual use facility that connects to other regional locations. The City maintains sidewalks on almost all City roadways, and some roadways have bicycle lanes. Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) is the principal transit service for the City and the surrounding communities. Transit routes generally operate on weekdays and Saturdays from Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 123, Packet Page 455 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -70- October 2023
approximately 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM and from approximately 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM on Sundays and holidays.

Overall, the City’s land use and circulation strategy for the General Plan Update calls for increasing opportunities for alternative transportation use, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. One of the main goals of the Circulation Element is to promote a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment throughout the City. Many policies of the Circulation Element focus on and promote transit as a key tool for mitigating future circulation impacts. This is consistent with the City’s land use and transportation strategy which seeks to reduce major investments in roadway and intersection improvement projects where possible so that funding for such projects can be redirected to promoting and implementing alternative transportation strategies and projects.

The General Plan Update includes numerous policies that are aimed at expanding access to and use of alternative modes of transportation throughout the City. Circulation Element Policy f.1 provides direction to work with MST to maintain convenient transit service along the City’s main arterial roadways. Policies e.2 through e.5 provide incentives for people to use transit regularly. Policies f.6 through f.8 focus on improving the transit infrastructure services in the City. Policies d.1 and d.2 provide direction to improve the Recreation Trail. Policies d.3 and d.4 require the installation of sidewalks and paths to link residential uses with schools, commercial centers and transit areas.

Policies d.5 through d.9 provide direction to ensure that pedestrian facilities are safe, attractive, and link with other regional bicycle and pedestrian systems. Circulation Element Policy a.1 calls for adoption of Travel Demand Management program, and Program a.2.3 under this policy calls for the identification of funding for local transit system service with dedicated revenue sources such as citywide traffic impact fees.

Level of Service (LOS) is a standard used to describe the operating conditions on a roadway segment or at an intersection. The City’s General Plan Circulation Element has an adopted level of service standard that is based on the presence of a multi-modal system. A lower vehicle level of service standard is acceptable when the bicycle, transit, and pedestrian network is implemented according to the City’s Multi-Modal Mobility Plan (MMMP), which addresses the City’s needs to create a safe and effective pedestrian, bicycle, and transit network. The MMMP supports enhancements to and maintenance of an extensive network of sidewalks and Class 1, 2, 3 and 4 bicycle facilities as well as increases in pedestrian and transit facilities.

The Circulation Element’s policies and programs are intended to reduce the overall duration and frequency of traffic congestion and parking shortages without relying on expansive infrastructure projects. The Circulation Element relies on alternative modes of transportation to reduce auto use but also identifies long-term roadway solutions along the principal arterial streets. A lower vehicle LOS standard is acceptable when bicycle, transit, and pedestrian network is implemented. As indicated above, the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan replaces traditional auto-oriented level of service (LOS) standards with multi-modal LOS goals that promote transit, bicycle, and pedestrian-oriented development in areas best served by these alternative modes of transportation (e.g., Downtown, North Fremont, C-2 parcels near Cannery Row, and Lighthouse areas). General Plan Circulation Element Programs j.1.2 and j.1.3 establish LOS D as an acceptable automobile LOS Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 124, Packet Page 456 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -71- October 2023
standard for roadway segments that are not within a multi-modal corridor, and LOS E and LOS F as an acceptable automobile LOS on roadway segments within a completed multi-modal system.

The General Plan EIR found that the City is not expected to experience significant growth over the next 20 years, the local street network was not expected to undergo significant improvements, although some road and intersection deficiencies were identified, resulting in a significant impact.

The EIR indicates that the Circulation Element Roads Policies c.3 and c.10 through c.14 call for direct physical improvements to the roadway network to improve circulation conditions. Several of the policies target specific road segments and intersections for improvements. Policy j.3 requires new development to fund or build improvements needed to mitigate significant traffic impacts. In addition to physical improvements proposed by the City, a series of regional network improvements proposed by TAMC would help mitigate future traffic impacts within the City.

Consistent with the City’s land use strategy, Circulation Element policies focus on improving infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation, rather than implementing major roadway improvements. The purpose of these policies is to improve the efficiency with which existing roadways operate. Circulation Element Policies b.1 through b.5 seek to reduce vehicle trip generation and trip lengths, and support mixed-use development, funding of alternative transportation, and expansion of the City’s WAVE shuttle system. Circulation Element Monitoring Policies j.1 through j.3 include provisions for the city to monitor changes in traffic volumes and mobility choices to assure that degradation of levels of service on roadways and at intersections is identified and to develop improvement plans for the City’s transportation system and also includes provisions for evaluation of impacts of new development and adopting a traffic impact fee to support future transportation system improvements and transportation management program improvements. The EIR also reported that though policies, which promote and facilitate funding of public transit, are interspersed throughout the Circulation Element, Policies f.1 through f.8 of the Transit section target transit system expansion actions and development of financial incentives as mechanisms to improve transit ridership. The EIR also reports that several rail and air transportation policies would also serve to reduce congestion and improve access to alternative transportation.

Though policies contained in the General Plan Update largely serve to mitigate roadway and intersection LOS impacts to a less than significant level, the EIR includes four mitigation measures to support transportation monitoring (#7), improve Lighthouse Avenue (#8), integrate General Plan policies to promote transit improvements (#9), and to coordinate with Caltrans and TAMC to identify improvements and funding for improvements to highways and the regional transportation network (#10). With implementation of General Plan policies and mitigation measures, the EIR concludes that the impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. These mitigation measures generally have been incorporated into the General Plan as: Circulation Policies j.1 though j.4 (Mitigation Measure #7); Policy c.12 and Program c.12.1 (Mitigation Measure #8); and Policy c.15 (Mitigation Measure #10). Mitigation Measure #9 calls for integration of the various circulation policies cited in the policy to prioritize and expand transit services and facilities.

The EIR also identified potentially significant impacts to alternative transportation modes (transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities) as a result of new development, although the majority of the development potential identified in the General Plan Update was in infill and designed mixed-use Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 125, Packet Page 457 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -72- October 2023
areas that generally have established bicycle and pedestrian paths and much of the infrastructure needed for transit services. The EIR concluded that implementation of the Circulation Element (policies and programs) combined with the City’s strategy to focus new residential development areas in mixed-use neighborhoods within existing transit corridors (such that transit service becomes increasingly economically viable) is anticipated to reduce impacts on alternative modes of transportation to a less than significant level.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of specified cannabis businesses, and cannabis retail businesses are limited to five. Future cannabis uses permitted pursuant to the proposed project would be located in developed commercial and industrial areas, and it is expected that uses would be located within existing buildings. The proposed Cannabis Business Overlay are located in areas of defined multi-modal corridors with access to alternative transportation modes. Future cannabis businesses are expected to be in existing buildings and would represent a replacement of other commercial or industrial uses occupying those spaces. For comparison, a review of trip generation rates from Trip Generation, 11th Edition (ITE 2021) indicates that a retail cannabis business would generate daily and peak hour trips that fall within the range of trips generated by a pharmacy/drugstore or liquor store, and would generate significantly less daily and peak hour trips than a convenience store or fast-food restaurant without a drive-through window. Generally, trip generation rates associated with cannabis retail businesses are within a range of trip generation rates for other commercial retail uses that could located or are already located within these areas. The location of the proposed overlay zones is consistent with the City’s General Plan policies that promote development in areas served by multi-modal transportation. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to conflicts with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
b) Conflicts with State CEQA Guidelines. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan EIR, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines changed impact analysis related to transportation. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) codifies the switch from LOS to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric for transportation analysis pursuant to state legislation adopted in 2013. “Vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. SB 743 directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a new metric to replace LOS as a measure of impact significance and suggests vehicle miles travelled as that metric. According to the legislation, upon certification of the guidelines, automobile delay, as described solely by LOS shall not be considered a significant impact (Section 21009(a)(2)). SB 743 also created a new CEQA exemption for certain projects that are consistent with the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy.

A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s VMT and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. A lead agency may elect to Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 126, Packet Page 458 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -73- October 2023
be governed by the provisions of this section immediately; beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions shall apply statewide. In accordance with the amended CEQA Guidelines, the City has transitioned from intersection LOS formerly used for traffic impact analyses to VMT as the metric for determining potentially significant impacts. The City adopted a VMT transportation threshold on March 16, 2021 in accordance with CEQA and state requirements. The threshold generally establishes that a project exceeding a level of 15 percent below the Countywide average VMT, with some variations depending on type of use, may result in a significant transportation impact.

The City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy (City of Monterey 2021) that is used to determine whether a land use project is within the VMT threshold includes a screening process in which situations are identified under which projects are determined to not have a significant impact and further VMT analysis is not required. Furthermore, projects, or portions of a project that meet the screening criteria do not require a CEQA transportation analysis, and such projects, or portions of a project, will not result in a significant CEQA transportation impact based on their project location and characteristics. According to the City’s guidelines, projects that would not be expected to result in a significant VMT impact and that are screened out from further transportation impact review include:
• Small projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day; • Projects near high-quality transit: within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a highquality transit corridor with a combined service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the AM and PM peak hours4;
• Local-serving retail (less than 50,000 square feet) projects; • Projects with 100 percent affordable housing;
• Local essential services, which includes daycare centers and libraries; • Map-based screening; and
• Redevelopment projects that do not result in a net increase in VMT.

Furthermore, there could be a reduction in overall VMT resulting from businesses being able to locate within the city, thus reducing travel distance City residents travel to similar businesses currently located outside of the city. The cannabis testing laboratory uses that could also be permitted under 4 The CEQA Guidelines indicate that, generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 127, Packet Page 459 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -74- October 2023
the proposed regulations are currently permitted, and the use would not be expected to result in VMT substantially different than other similar laboratory and research/testing facilities that could locate or are located in the same area. Thus, the proposed project would not result in conflicts with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) or result in VMT impacts.

Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
c-d) Hazardous Design Features and Emergency Access. The General Plan EIR identified no impact regarding potential hazardous design features as future roadways and related infrastructure would be required to meet accepted roadway design manual standards. The City would review each project to ensure that there are no hazardous roadway features and that roadway designs are consistent with the adopted standards.

The proposed project does not include any proposed roadway or transportation or circulation improvements. As explained above, the limited number of cannabis businesses that could occur under the proposed project would likely be located within existing buildings that would not require new roads or access improvements that could include hazardous design features or provide inadequate emergency access. Thus, the proposed project would result in no impact. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

18. Tribal Cultural Resources
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
Not Addressed Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
Not Addressed Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 128, Packet Page 460 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -75- October 2023

18. Tribal Cultural Resources
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
a-b) Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan EIR, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines and added a new topic for tribal cultural resources. The California Public Resources Code section 21084.2 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Public Resources Code section 21074, defines a “tribal cultural resource” as either: (1) sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Nature American tribe that is either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historic resources; or (2) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the location of specified cannabis business to four overlay zone districts, all of which are located within a high archaeological sensitivity area, except for the North Fremont overlay district. Future cannabis businesses resulting from the proposed ordnance are not anticipated to lead to projects involving ground-disturbing construction activities. Given the limited commercial areas in which cannabis retail businesses would be allowed to operate, it is assumed that the four storefront retail businesses and one non-storefront business would occupy existing buildings within the specified overlay districts and that no new structures would be constructed as these areas are already developed. Thus, future projects allowed by the proposed ordinance are not expected to result in ground-disturbing activities that would have the potential to uncover or disturb tribal cultural resources if any exist. If new construction were proposed in archaeologically sensitive areas, development would be subject to the General Plan Historic Preservation Policy a.4 as required by the EIR mitigation, which requires review of potential archaeological impacts as part of the CEQA process for future development projects located in archaeologically sensitive areas (See Section III.E. 5).

Thus, potential businesses permitted in the future would not have an adverse effect on archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources because future development under the proposed ordinance would not result in ground disturbing construction activities or if so, would be subject to the EIR’s mitigation measure that would be considered a uniformly applied development standard. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 129, Packet Page 461 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -76- October 2023
pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. Furthermore, the City is required to notify and potentially consult with Native American tribes if requested at the time a development project is proposed.

19. Utilities and Service Systems
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment
facilities, or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or which could cause
significant environmental effects?
DEIR pages 2-
131 to 2-133, 2-
137 to 2-138, 2-
140 to 2-141
No No None
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
DEIR pages 2-
134 to 2-136 No No
General Plan
Public Facilities
Element Policies
a.6 and m.1 thru
m.3
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
DEIR pages 2-
131 to 2-133 No No None
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
DEIR pages 2-
140 to 2-141 No No
General Plan
Public Facilities
Element Policies
n.1 and n.3
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
DEIR page 2-138 No No None
a) Relocation or Construction of Utilities. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan EIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G questions were modified to include a new question regarding need for new, relocated, or expanded infrastructure systems. The project would be served by existing utilities, and the General Plan EIR concluded that the regional wastewater treatment facility would be adequate to handle growth and development accommodated by the General Plan and would not Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 130, Packet Page 462 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -77- October 2023
require expansion or construction of facilities to serve future growth; see subsection (c) below.

Because the limited number of cannabis retail businesses that could be permitted in the City (five) and the fact that future cannabis businesses, including testing laboratory uses, are expected to be located with existing buildings in exiting developed areas, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly require relocation or expansion water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, or other utility facilities. Thus, Therefore, the project would result in no impact to utility infrastructure. No further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
b) Water Supplies. Water is supplied to most of the Monterey Peninsula by CalAm through wells in Carmel Valley, a dam on the Carmel River, and a well on the Seaside Aquifer. The City is wholly within the jurisdiction of the MPWMD, which is responsible for developing long-term water supply for the Monterey Peninsula cities in the district. It is the goal of the City of Monterey and the General Plan to obtain a long-term, sustainable water supply, including evaluation of water supply options outside the present MPWMD framework.

The General Plan EIR explains water supply issues that have confronted the Monterey Peninsula for decades. CalAm, MPWMD, and other agencies have pursued options for supplemental water supplies since the mid-1990s. In 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) issued Order No. WR 95-10 directing CalAm to implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversion from Carmel River. Through various conservation efforts over the years, Cal-Am has reduced its annual illegal diversion of the Carmel River Basin to approximately 7,150 acre-feet. Cal-Am continues its effort towards providing an alternative potable water source. Additional water supplies have been provided through the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program allows for the storage of excess Carmel River flows in the Seaside Groundwater Basin Coastal Subbasin for later extraction during summer months. The MPWMD and M1W, the regional wastewater treatment provider, recently completed the construction and startup of the Pure Water Monterey (PWM) Project. The PWM Project provides purified recycled water for injection into the Seaside Groundwater Basin and ultimate potable use in Monterey Main. The PWM Project also provides purified recycled water for landscape irrigation for the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) and recycled water to augment the existing Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project’s agricultural irrigation supply (WSC 2021).

In 1992, as part of its oversight of water allocation and distribution, MPWMD adopted Ordinance 60 establishing a program whereby a water customer may obtain and reuse water use credits when water use on a particular property is reduced or discontinued. When a commercial property owner applies to the MPWMD for a water use credit, the MPWMD will determine credits based upon one of several methods. The commercial water use factor associated with the historical use(s) may be used when a use is either being abandoned or permanently reduced to a lower intensity use; a quantification of water saved may be used when inefficient equipment is replaced with highly water efficient equipment; or historic records may be used to determine the past (abandoned) use. With a few exceptions, the water use credit is valid for 60 months and can be extended for 60 months. After the 60-month period, any remaining unused water use credit expires. Water use credits affected by the CDO will be reinstated at its conclusion with a term equal to the amount of time the CDO impacted the credit.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 131, Packet Page 463 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -78- October 2023
In 1993, MPWMD adopted Rule 28 to allow Water Use Credit Transfers between commercial properties. The rule was amended in 1995, to allow Water Use Credit Transfers from an existing commercial use to a jurisdiction’s water allocation. The Water Use Credit rules are designed to provide incentives for undertaking extraordinary retrofitting and/or installation of proven new technology and to provide a mechanism for offsetting potential intensification in use.

In 1981, MPWMD’s Resolution 81-7 authorized an annual allocation of 5,746 acre-feet of potable water to the City. Subsequent annual allotments were made and were adjusted up to 6,125.48 acrefeet to more accurately reflect the City’s actual water use. In 1993, the City received from MPWMD a water allocation of 308 acre-feet from Cal-Am’s Paralta Well in the Seaside Basin coastal subarea.

This was the last allocation from MPWMD.

In 1986, the City Council reserved the remaining supply of the City’s allocation for seven categories of uses and established procedures for determinations of water usage. The purpose for establishing the unallocated reserve was to provide a water account that could be used to address unanticipated or emergency water requests, such as increased usage caused by increased visitors, use by the Federal Government, State and other agencies beyond the jurisdiction of the City, and unanticipated emergencies. The categories have changed over time, and since 2006, are assigned as follows: 1) Affordable Housing, 2) Public Projects (reserve), 3) Public Projects (high priority), 4) Single Family Remodels, 5) Other Residential, 6) Commercial Projects, and 7) Economic and Environmental Sustainability.

Additionally, the City owns two open space parcels adjacent to the Ryan Ranch Business Park, one of which is located on the former Fort Ord that has access to water. The MCWD is the water purveyor for the former Fort Ord, and water allocations were made to the jurisdictions within its boundaries.

The City of Monterey was allocated approximately 65 acre-feet from the Fort Ord allocation for the City’s entire 130+ acres. The City can allocate a portion of the 65 acre-feet for the open space parcel as it deems appropriate.

The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would require additional water supply and that the City does not have adequate water supplies to meet new residential and/or commercial demand. The EIR reported uncertainty as to when additional supply would be made available through the MPWMD or other sources. The development potential identified in the General Plan Update will not be realized until supplemental water supply is available.

As indicated above, some supplemental water supplies have been made available since certification of the General Plan EIR.

The EIR found that policies in the General Plan Update would serve to manage growth to meet available water supply, promote development of additional water supplies, and/or conserve water would serve to mitigate impacts from insufficient water supply. Public Facilities Growth Management Policy a.6 states that the rate of development is to be controlled to ensure that proposed projects can be adequately served with public facilities. Public Facilities Water Policies m.1 through m.3 address the need to increase supply both within or outside of the MPWMD framework, encourage Cal-Am to maintain its water supply system in good condition to avoid water losses, and encourage adoption of standards for allocating water, respectively. Policy m.1 is accompanied by eight Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 132, Packet Page 464 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -79- October 2023
implementation actions for developing alternative water supplies to meet future demand. The EIR concluded that implementation of the above referenced policies should prevent approval of development without assurance of adequate water supply and would promote development of supplemental or additional water to attain sufficient supply to meet General Plan Update development goals.

Similarly, cannabis testing laboratory businesses, which are already allowed in the I-R zone likely would be located in existing buildings as the industrially-designated areas are mostly already developed. Therefore, the new cannabis businesses that would be permitted under the proposed project would represent replacement of existing commercial or industrial uses. Neither cannabis retail or testing businesses are expected to use substantial amounts of water. Under current MPWMD requirements, future businesses permitted under the proposed regulations would be required to demonstrate that water demand is consistent with historical water use at the property. Thus, water demand generated by new cannabis businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would not have an adverse effect on potable water supplies. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
c) Wastewater Treatment. The City maintains the sanitary sewer collection system within its jurisdictional boundaries. The existing sanitary sewer collection system conveys sewage from sewer point sources within the City, such as homes, businesses, and public facilities, to a regional wastewater treatment plant for treatment and disposal. The sanitary sewer collection system operated by the City consists of approximately 102 miles of sewer pipeline maintained by City personnel and seven sewer lift stations.

Monterey’s sewage is conveyed through pipelines to the Monterey One Water (M1W) (formerly Monterey Water Pollution Control Agency [MPWCA]) wastewater treatment plant in the city of Marina for treatment and disposal. Wastewater undergoes tertiary treatment through its water recycling facility and is distributed for irrigation uses on farmlands in northern Monterey County. The remaining wastewater undergoes secondary treatment prior to discharge though an ocean outfall two miles into Monterey Bay or undergoes advanced purification for groundwater replenishment.

Local sewer collection pipelines of various capacities exist underground within the City and eventually flow to larger sewer mains that feed into the M1W interceptor pipeline. The interceptor pipeline receives sewer flows from both Pacific Grove and Monterey and carries those flows to the wastewater treatment plant. Monterey’s existing sewer collection system is an aged one and requires on-going maintenance and rehabilitation. The City is completing a multiyear program to repair and replace sanitary sewer collection system structures. The existing capacity of the system is adequate to convey the sewer loads generated.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 133, Packet Page 465 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -80- October 2023
The General Plan EIR determined that the M1W’s regional wastewater treatment facility has the capacity to serve General Plan buildout and that increased wastewater flows would result in a lessthan-significant impact. The EIR reported that implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a decrease in available treatment capacity at the regional plant, and in combination with other cumulative development within M1W’s service area, the need for an expansion of treatment capacity could be triggered. However, the EIR indicated that M1W continually monitors its operations to ensure that standards are being met and to evaluate operational needs as well as need for expansion. If expansion of the plant were needed, the M1W would likely be the lead agency in conducting an environmental constructing a project. Fees paid by new development within the City to M1W would serve as mitigation for its incremental impact on reducing treatment capacity.

Similarly, cannabis testing laboratory businesses, which are already allowed in the I-R zone likely would be located in existing buildings as the industrially-designated areas are mostly already developed. Therefore, the new cannabis businesses that would be permitted under the proposed project would represent replacement of existing commercial or industrial uses. Neither cannabis retail or testing businesses are expected to generate substantial amounts of wastewater, which would be expected to be similar to the amount generated by other commercial and industrial uses.

Thus, wastewater generated by new cannabis businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would not have an adverse effect on existing wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. d-e) Solid Waste. The regional waste collection facility is located in the City of Marina and is operated by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD). Locally, there is a transfer facility in Ryan Ranch operated by Monterey Disposal Service. The Waste Management District’s landfill has expanded over time and the District estimates that the landfill has remaining capacity for more than 100 years (per the District’s website at https://regenmonterey.org/monterey-peninsula-landfill/).

The General Plan EIR identified a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste as the additional volume of solid waste that would be generated with implementation of the General Plan Update is not considered to be significant because the MRWMD landfill has substantial remaining capacity and current studies are in progress to further increase capacity. The EIR also indicated that the City currently conducts a range of programs to reduce waste generation and to divert waste, including through significant recycling as required by state law. Furthermore, Public Facilities Element Policies n.1 and n.3 focus on actions to maximize waste reduction and recycling and encourage commercial composting and waste minimization public education programs, respectively. Implementation of these policies and continuation of the City’s extensive curbside recycling program will help to Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 134, Packet Page 466 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -81- October 2023
minimize the impact of future development on landfill capacity and ensure conformity with applicable waste management law.

The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the Monterey City Code to include regulations for specified cannabis businesses. The proposed ordinance limits the number and location of specified cannabis businesses. Given the limited commercial areas in which cannabis retail and testing laboratory businesses would be allowed to operate, it is the new cannabis businesses would be located in existing buildings as the permitted locations are within existing developed areas.

Therefore, new businesses would represent replacement of existing commercial or industrial uses.

Neither cannabis retail or testing businesses are expected to generate substantial amounts of solid waste, which would be expected to be similar to the amounts generated other commercial and industrial uses. Thus, solid waste generated by new cannabis businesses allowed under the proposed ordinance would not have an adverse effect on remaining landfill capacity. There are no known federal, state, or local regulations regarding solid waste that are applicable to the proposed project.

20. Wildfire
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation? DEIR pages 2-62
and 2-66 to 2-
67 No No
General Plan
Safety Element
Policies, e.1, e.3
and d.2 and
supporting
Programs d.2.1
and d.2.2
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Not Addressed Not Applicable Not Applicable None
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
Not Addressed Not Applicable Not Applicable None
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 135, Packet Page 467 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -82- October 2023

20. Wildfire
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Not Addressed Not Applicable Not Applicable None
a-d) Wildfire Hazards. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan EIR, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines were adopted and added a new topic for wildfire. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) published Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Maps for all regions in California. The proposed FHSZ Maps include fire hazard elements of vegetation, topography, weather, crown fire potential, ember production and movement, and the likelihood. The maps are intended to be used for implementing wildland-urban interface building standards, natural hazard real estate disclosures, space clearance requirements around buildings, property development standards, and severity of zones are to be considered in city and county general plans.

The Monterey City Code Chapter 13, Fire Protection and the City’s General Plan Map 14, Showing Fire Hazard Severity Zones has included the FHSZ maps. The project site is incorporated as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) in a Non - Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The proposed project does not include substantial changes to future cannabis retail or testing sites that would impact vulnerability to wildfire, impede emergency response access or impede evacuation routes/plans/response. The future cannabis retail and testing sites would be located in a developed urban area and not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazards severity zones. No maintenance infrastructure (roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or utilities) would need to be constructed. Thus, the project and resulting cannabis businesses permitted as a resulted of the proposed regulations would result in no impact related to wildfire. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 136, Packet Page 468 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -83- October 2023

21. Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
DEIR pages 2-
28, 2-35 to 2-
37, and 2-42 to
2-46
No No
General Plan
Conservation
Element Policies
d.3, d.4 and d.5,
General Plan
Historic
Preservation
Element Policies
a.1 through a.3,
Urban Design
Element Policies
e.1 through e.3
b) Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
DEIR pages 3-3
to 3-5
No No None
c) Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DEIR pages 2-14
to 2-17, 2-61, 2-
65 to 2-66, 2-91
to 2-98
No No
General Plan
Update
Mitigation
Measure #2 that
is included in
General Plan
Safety Element
Goal g and
Mitigation
Measure #3 that
is included in
General Plan
Safety Element
Policy h.2,
General Plan
Update
Mitigation
Measure #6;
General Plan
Update Noise
Element Policies
Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 137, Packet Page 469 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -84- October 2023

21. Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a.1 through a.6,
b.5, and d.1
a) Degradation of Environmental Quality. The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment specifically related to biological and cultural resources as documented herein in Sections III.E.4 and 5, respectively. The project would not result in impacts to biological or cultural resources. Not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR. The reviews herein found that the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. b) Cumulative Impacts. The General Plan EIR concluded that the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, except for transportation. The EIR found that development resulting from the General Plan Update in combination with other cumulative development could have cumulative effects on the regional roadway network, including Highway 68 between Monterey and Salinas, Highway 1 from Carmel to Santa Cruz, Highway 101 from south Monterey County north to Gilroy, and Highway 156 between Castroville and Highway 101. As discussed in Section III.E.17, the proposed project would not result in substantial increases in vehicle trips or other impacts to the transportation system. The reviews herein found that the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. c) Effects on Human Beings. The proposed project would not result in environmental effects that would be cause substantial adverse on human beings, such as exposure to substantial concentrations of air pollutants, hazardous materials or noise as explained herein (see Sections III.E.3, 9, and 13). The reviews herein found that the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 138, Packet Page 470 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -85- October 2023
IV. REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board.
- 2023. Maps of State and National Area Designations - 2022. Available online at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.

Accessed October 6, 2023.
- 2022a. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022. Accessed October 6, at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf. - 2022b. California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan—Appendix D, Local Actions.

November 2022. Accessed October 6, 2023 at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf.

California Department of Conservation.
- 2023. California Tsunami Maps. Available online at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.
- 2023. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. “Monterey County Important Farmland 2018” map. Available online at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Monterey.aspx.

City of Monterey.
- January 25, 2021. City of Monterey Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy. - Amended April 2017, Adopted October 2013. Downtown Specific Plan. Available online at:
https://monterey.org/Portals/0/Reports/CommDev/17_0418_Downtown_SP_Amend_Large.p df.
- March 2016. Climate Action Plan. Available online at:
https://monterey.org/Portals/0/Reports/ForPublicReview/Draft_Climate_Action_Plan.pdf - 2005. General Plan. As amended through June 2019. Available online at:
https://monterey.org/Services/Community-Development/Planning/Land-Use-andDevelopment-Regulations. - 2004. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Available online at:
https://monterey.org/Services/Community-Development/Planning/Land-Use-andDevelopment-Regulations.

Monterey Bay Air Resources District5.
- Adopted March 15, 2017. “2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan.” Available online at:
https://www.mbard.org/files/6632732f5/2012-2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf - Adopted April 1996-Revised February 2016. Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Available online at:
https://www.mbard.org/files/50d38962a/Attachment_Guidelines-for-ImplementingCEQA.pdf - 2013. Board Agenda Item No. 19, February 20, 2013. “Receive an Informational Report on the Status of Developing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Thresholds for Evaluating Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Provide Direction to Staff on Next Steps.” 5 Formerly the Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 139, Packet Page 471 Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
Environmental Review -86- October 2023
- February 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at: https://www.mbard.org/ceqa - 2005 Report on Attainment of the California Particulate Matter Standards in the Monterey Bay Region
Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission. January 2019; adopted February 25, 2019. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Monterey Regional Airport Monterey County, California. Prepared by Coffman Associates. Available online at:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=75251 Monterey County Resource Management Agency, Planning Department. March 2010. Monterey County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2007121001), including Draft EIR volumes (September 2008). Certified by Monterey County Board of Supervisors on October 26, 2010. Prepared by ICF International. Available online at:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/housing-communitydevelopment/planning-services/current-planning/general-info/2010-monterey-countygeneral-plan-adopted-october-26-2010/general-plan-final-environmental-impact-report-feirinformation.

State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). 2008. “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA” [map]. 1:14,000. Map ID: FHSZL_c27_Monterey. Monterey, California: Cal Fire. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5870/monterey.pdf.

WSC-Water Systems Consulting, Inc. June 2021. California American Water Central DivisionMonterey County District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/7/2023, Item No. 23., Item Page 140, Packet Page 472

EXHIBIT B

Page 1 of 28 ends

Monterey City CouncilNovember 7, 2023

Monterey City Council
November 7, 2023